Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26524675›Full record

Observational studyEuropean journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine2017

The SPEED (sepsis patient evaluation in the emergency department) score: a risk stratification and outcome prediction tool.

Jan Philipp Bewersdorf, Oliver Hautmann, Daniel Kofink, Alizan Abdul Khalil, Imran Zainal Abidin, Alexander Loch

Registry-linked trialAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05107297 (Comparison of National Early Warning Score), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05107297 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Comparison of National Early Warning Score (NEWS) & Sepsis Patient Evaluation in the Emergency Department (SPEED) for The Early Identification of Sepsis in the Emergency Department

TypeobservationalSponsorAssiut UniversityRan2021 to 2025Enrolled120ConditionsSepsis Scores
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. FUTURES: Forecasting the Unexpected Transfer to Upgraded REsources in Sepsis.Proceedings of the International Symposium of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Healthcare. International Symposium of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Healthcare · 2019
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jan Philipp BewersdorfDepartments of aSurgery bMedicine, University Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia cLaboratory of Experimental Cardiology, Department of Cardiology, Division of Heart and Lung, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Oliver Hautmann
Daniel Kofink
Alizan Abdul Khalil
Imran Zainal Abidin
Alexander Loch

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of the study was to identify covariates associated with 28-day mortality in septic patients admitted to the emergency department and derive and validate a score that stratifies mortality risk utilizing parameters that are readily available.

methodsPatients with an admission diagnosis of suspected or confirmed infection and fulfilling at least two criteria for severe inflammatory response syndrome were included in this study. Patients' characteristics, vital signs, and laboratory values were used to identify prognostic factors for mortality. A scoring system was derived and validated. The primary outcome was the 28-day mortality rate.

resultsA total of 440 patients were included in the study. The 28-day hospital mortality rate was 32.4 and 25.2% for the derivation (293 patients) and validation (147 patients) sets, respectively. Factors associated with a higher mortality were immune-suppressed state (odds ratio 4.7; 95% confidence interval 2.0-11.4), systolic blood pressure on arrival less than 90 mmHg (3.8; 1.7-8.3), body temperature less than 36.0°C (4.1; 1.3-12.9), oxygen saturation less than 90% (2.3; 1.1-4.8), hematocrit less than 0.38 (3.1; 1.6-5.9), blood pH less than 7.35 (2.0; 1.04-3.9), lactate level more than 2.4 mmol/l (2.27; 1.2-4.2), and pneumonia as the source of infection (2.7; 1.5-5.0). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81 (0.75-0.86) in the derivation and 0.81 (0.73-0.90) in the validation set. The SPEED (sepsis patient evaluation in the emergency department) score performed better (P=0.02) than the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis score when applied to the complete study population with an area under the curve of 0.81 (0.76-0.85) as compared with 0.74 (0.70-0.79).

conclusionThe SPEED score predicts 28-day mortality in septic patients. It is simple and its predictive value is comparable to that of other scoring systems.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesEmergency Service, HospitalRisk AssessmentHospital MortalityHumansMiddle AgedPrognosisProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsSepsisSystemic Inflammatory Response SyndromeVital Signs

Identifiers

PMID26524675
PMCPMC5417572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.