Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28114554›Full record

ArticleJAMA2017

Prognostic Accuracy of Sepsis-3 Criteria for In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients With Suspected Infection Presenting to the Emergency Department.

Yonathan Freund, Najla Lemachatti, Evguenia Krastinova, Marie Van Laer, Yann-Erick Claessens, Aurélie Avondo, Céline Occelli, Anne-Laure Feral-Pierssens, Jennifer Truchot, Mar Ortega and 8 more

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 312 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
312citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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.

NCT02738164 completednot on this map

Validation of the SEPSIS-3 Criterion for Sepsis and Septic Shock in the Emergency Department

TypeobservationalSponsorSociete Française de Medecine d'urgenceRan2016 to 2016Enrolled879ConditionsSepsis, Emergency
NCT04721275 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of the Performance of Sepsis Predictive Scores on the Elderly Population in the Emergency Department.

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity Hospital, ToursRan2021 to 2021Enrolled200ConditionsSepsisArmsmeasurement of pronostic sepsis scores
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

312 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

252 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

Yonathan FreundSorbonne Universités, UPMC Paris Univ-06, Paris, France2Emergency Department, Hôpital Pitie-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP), Paris, France.
Najla LemachattiEmergency Department, Hôpital Pitie-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP), Paris, France.
Evguenia KrastinovaPlateforme de recherche clinique de l'est parisien (URCEST-CRCEST), Hôpital St Antoine, APHP, Paris, France.
Marie Van LaerEmergency Department, Cliniques Universitaires St Luc, Bruxelles, Belgium.
Yann-Erick ClaessensEmergency Department, Princess Grace Hospital, Monte-Carlo, Monaco.
Aurélie AvondoEmergency Department, Centre hospitalo-universitaire, Dijon, France.
Céline OccelliEmergency Department, Hôpital Pasteur, Nice, France.
Anne-Laure Feral-PierssensEmergency Department, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France.
Jennifer TruchotEmergency Department, Hôpital Lariboisière, APHP, Paris, France.
Mar OrtegaEmergency Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain.
Bruno CarneiroEmergency Department, Centre hospitalo-universitaire, Angers, France.
Julie PernetEmergency Department, Hôpital Tenon, APHP, Paris, France.
Pierre-Géraud ClaretEmergency Department, Centre hospitalo-universitaire, Nîmes, France.
Fabrice DamiEmergency Department, CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Ben BloomEmergency Department, Barts Health NHS trust, London, United Kingdom.
Bruno RiouSorbonne Universités, UPMC Paris Univ-06, Paris, France2Emergency Department, Hôpital Pitie-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP), Paris, France.
Sébastien BeauneEmergency Department, Hôpital Ambroise-Paré, Boulogne, France, and Paris Diderot University, INSERM UMRS 1144, Paris, France.
French Society of Emergency Medicine Collaborators Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: An international task force recently redefined the concept of sepsis. This task force recommended the use of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score instead of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to identify patients at high risk of mortality. However, these new criteria have not been prospectively validated in some settings, and their added value in the emergency department remains unknown. Objective: To prospectively validate qSOFA as a mortality predictor and compare the performances of the new sepsis criteria to the previous ones. Design, Settings, and Participants: International prospective cohort study, conducted in France, Spain, Belgium, and Switzerland between May and June 2016. In the 30 participating emergency departments, for a 4-week period, consecutive patients who visited the emergency departments with suspected infection were included. All variables from previous and new definitions of sepsis were collected. Patients were followed up until hospital discharge or death. Exposures: Measurement of qSOFA, SOFA, and SIRS. Main Outcomes and Measures: In-hospital mortality. Results: Of 1088 patients screened, 879 were included in the analysis. Median age was 67 years (interquartile range, 47-81 years), 414 (47%) were women, and 379 (43%) had respiratory tract infection. Overall in-hospital mortality was 8%: 3% for patients with a qSOFA score lower than 2 vs 24% for those with qSOFA score of 2 or higher (absolute difference, 21%; 95% CI, 15%-26%). The qSOFA performed better than both SIRS and severe sepsis in predicting in-hospital mortality, with an area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74-0.85) vs 0.65 (95% CI, 0.59-0.70) for both SIRS and severe sepsis (P < .001; incremental AUROC, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.09-0.22). The hazard ratio of qSOFA score for death was 6.2 (95% CI, 3.8-10.3) vs 3.5 (95% CI, 2.2-5.5) for severe sepsis. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected infection, the use of qSOFA resulted in greater prognostic accuracy for in-hospital mortality than did either SIRS or severe sepsis. These findings provide support for the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) criteria in the emergency department setting. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02738164.

Indexed as

Hospital MortalityOrgan Dysfunction ScoresAgedAged, 80 and overArea Under CurveBelgiumEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleFranceHumansInfectionsMaleMiddle AgedNormal DistributionPrognosisProspective Studies

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.