Abstract: We included three RCTs in this review. It was unclear if the RCTs were three separate studies involving 1199 participants in total, or if they were reports from the same study involving fewer participants. We decided to treat the studies separately, as we were unable to make contact with the study authors to clarify. All three RCTs are of very low study quality because of issues with unclear randomization methods, allocation concealment and uncertainty of effect size. Some of the studies were reported as abstracts only and contained limited data, which prevented meaningful analysis and assessment of potential biases. The studies included participants who all received automated electronic monitoring during their hospital stay. Participants were randomized to an intervention group (automated alerts sent from the system) or to usual care (no automated alerts sent from the system). Evidence from all three studies reported 'Time to initiation of antimicrobial therapy'. We were unable to pool the data, but the largest study involving 680 participants reported median time to initiation of antimicrobial therapy in the intervention group of 5.6 hours (interquartile range (IQR) 2.3 to 19.7) in the intervention group (n = not stated) and 7.8 hours (IQR 2.5 to 33.1) in the control group (n = not stated). No studies reported 'Time to initiation of fluid resuscitation' or the adverse event 'Mortality at 30 days'. However very low-quality evidence was available where mortality was reported at other time points. One study involving 77 participants reported 14-day mortality of 20% in the intervention group and 21% in the control group (numerator and denominator not stated). One study involving 442 participants reported mortality at 28 days, or discharge was 14% in the intervention group and 10% in the control group (numerator and denominator not reported). Sample sizes were not reported adequately for these outcomes and so we could not estimate confidence intervals. Very low-quality evidence from one study involving 442 participants reported 'Length of stay in ICU'. Median length of stay was 3.0 days in the intervention group (IQR = 2.0 to 5.0), and 3.0 days (IQR 2.0 to 4.0 in the control). Very low-quality evidence from one study involving at least 442 participants reported the adverse effect 'Failed detection of sepsis'. Data were only reported for failed detection of sepsis in two participants and it wasn't clear which group(s) this outcome occurred in. No studies reported 'Quality of life'. It is unclear what effect automated systems for monitoring sepsis have on any of the outcomes included in this review. Very low-quality evidence is only available on automated alerts, which is only one component of automated monitoring systems. It is uncertain whether such systems can replace regular, careful review of the patient's condition by experienced healthcare staff.

Plain-language summary: We conducted a search to identify evidence published before September 2017. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they compared automated sepsis monitoring to standard care (such as paper-based systems) in people admitted to intensive or critical care units for critical illness. We did not include non-randomized studies (studies where participants were not allocated to treatment groups by chance), quasi-randomized studies (studies where participants were allocated to treatment groups by a method that is not truly down to chance, such as date of birth or medical number), and cross-over studies (where participants first receive one treatment and then cross over to receive the other treatment). Studies including people already diagnosed with sepsis were also excluded. We included three randomized controlled trials (studies where participants were allocated to treatment groups by chance), involving 1199 participants in this review. Overall there were no significant differences in time to start of antimicrobial therapy (such as antimicrobial and antifungal treatments, very low-quality evidence), length of stay in the intensive care setting (very low-quality evidence), or in mortality at 14 days, 28 days or discharge (very low-quality evidence) when automated monitoring systems were compared to standard care. Very low-quality evidence was available on failed detection of sepsis but data reporting was too unclear to enable us to analyse this in a meaningful way. Other outcomes that we wished to assess like time to initiation of fluid resuscitation (the process of increasing the amount of fluids in the body), mortality at 30 days, and quality of life were not reported in any of the studies. Results of this review show limited, very low-quality evidence, which has prevented us from drawing meaningful conclusions. It is unclear what effect automated systems for monitoring sepsis have on any outcomes included in this review, and therefore we are uncertain if automated sepsis monitoring is beneficial or not. Additional, high-quality evidence is needed to help address our review question.