ArticleCritical care (London, England)2017
Comparison of qSOFA and SIRS for predicting adverse outcomes of patients with suspicion of sepsis outside the intensive care unit.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 111 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
111 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prognostic models for predicting intensive care unit admission or mortality in critically ill adults not yet been admitted to the intensive care unit.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Core outcome measures for clinical effectiveness trials of nutritional and metabolic interventions in critical illness: an international modified Delphi consensus study evaluation (CONCISE).Critical care (London, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- SIRS or qSOFA? Is that the question? Clinical and methodological observations from a meta-analysis and critical review on the prognostication of patients with suspected sepsis outside the ICU.Internal and emergency medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment as a prognostic factor for infected patients outside the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Comparison of Prognostic Accuracy of the quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment between Short- & Long-term Mortality in Patients Presenting Outside of the Intensive Care Unit - A Systematic Review & Meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2018Pooled it
- Performance of the quick Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment score as a prognostic tool in infected patients outside the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Critical care (London, England) · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- Molecular diagnosis of sepsis in hospital patients: assessment of the Agata SepsisBMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Comparison of CURB-65 and qSOFA scores in predicting outcomes in community-acquired pneumonia.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Article
- Toward precision risk stratification: predicting in-hospital death in sepsis patients with MRSA bacteremia.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Rethinking sepsis prediction in the era of large language models.npj health systems · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Simplified Prehospital Sepsis Screening Tools for Identifying Sepsis and Predicting 30-Day Mortality: A Retrospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- Comparative Prognostic Performance of qSOFA and SOFA in Emergency Department Patients With Established Septic Shock.Emergency medicine international · 2026Article
- Article
- Selecting patients for ICU up-grade from general wards: role of prognostic tools.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Performance of Early Sepsis Screening Tools for Timely Diagnosis and Antibiotic Stewardship in a Resource-Limited Thai Community Hospital.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluating Sepsis Mortality Predictions from the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing qSOFA, the National Early Warning Score, and the International Early Warning Score.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the modified quick sequential organ failure assessment scoring system for triage and prognostic assessment in canine emergency and critically ill patients: a retrospective study.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
51 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) Task Force recently introduced a new clinical score termed quick Sequential (Sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) for identification of patients at risk of sepsis outside the intensive care unit (ICU). We attempted to compare the discriminatory capacity of the qSOFA versus the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) score for predicting mortality, ICU-free days, and organ dysfunction-free days in patients with suspicion of infection outside the ICU.
methodsThe Weill Cornell Medicine Registry and Biobank of Critically Ill Patients is an ongoing cohort of critically ill patients, for whom biological samples and clinical information (including vital signs before and during ICU hospitalization) are prospectively collected. Using such information, qSOFA and SIRS scores outside the ICU (specifically, within 8 hours before ICU admission) were calculated. This study population was therefore comprised of patients in the emergency department or the hospital wards who had suspected infection, were subsequently admitted to the medical ICU and were included in the Registry and Biobank.
resultsOne hundred fifty-two patients (67% from the emergency department) were included in this study. Sixty-seven percent had positive cultures and 19% died in the hospital. Discrimination of in-hospital mortality using qSOFA [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), 0.74; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.66-0.81] was significantly greater compared with SIRS criteria (AUC, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.51-0.67; p = 0.03). The qSOFA performed better than SIRS regarding discrimination for ICU-free days (p = 0.04), but not for ventilator-free days (p = 0.19), any organ dysfunction-free days (p = 0.13), or renal dysfunction-free days (p = 0.17).
conclusionsIn patients with suspected infection who eventually required admission to the ICU, qSOFA calculated before their ICU admission had greater accuracy than SIRS for predicting mortality and ICU-free days. However, it may be less clear whether qSOFA is also better than SIRS criteria for predicting ventilator free-days and organ dysfunction-free days. These findings may help clinicians gain further insight into the usefulness of qSOFA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.