ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine2017
Are scoring systems sufficient for predicting mortality due to sepsis in the emergency department?
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical utility of biomarkers for outcomes prediction in adults with suspected sepsis presenting to the emergency department: a synthesis of current evidence.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Article
- The Predictive Utility of Arterial Blood Gas Analysis for ICU Transfer and In-Hospital Mortality Among General Internal Medicine Inpatients.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Co-Evaluation of Lactate, Base Excess, and Albumin as Predictors of Mortality in Sepsis by Excluding the Factors That Affect Their Levels: An Observational Study.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- A combination of the Modified Early Warning Score and the Korean Triage and Acuity Scale as a triage tool in patients with infection.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Can thrombocytosis or thrombocytopenia predict complicated clinical course and 30-days mortality in patients with pneumonia?Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2021Article
- Lactate-enhanced-qSOFA (LqSOFA) score is superior to the other four rapid scoring tools in predicting in-hospital mortality rate of the sepsis patients.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Sepsis patient evaluation emergency department (SPEED) score & mortality in emergency department sepsis (MEDS) score in predicting 28-day mortality of emergency sepsis patients.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2019Article
- Hydroxysafflor Yellow A Attenuates the Apoptosis of Peripheral Blood CD4Frontiers in pharmacology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesScoring systems have been used to risk stratify in intensive care units (ICU), but not routinely used in emergency departments. The aim of this study was to determine accuracy for predicting mortality in emergency medicine with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Mortality in ED Sepsis (MEDS) score and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPSII).
methodsThis is a prospective observational study. Patients presenting with evidence of sepsis were all included. SAPSII, MEDS, and SOFA scores were calculated. Analysis compared areas under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves for 28-day mortality.
resultsTwo hundred patients were included; consisting of 31 (14.3%) septic shock. 138 (69%) severe sepsis and 31 (15.5%) infection without organ dysfunction. 53 (26.5%) patients died within 28 days. Area under the ROC curve for mortality was 0.76 for MEDS (0.69-0.82), 0.70 for SAPSII (0.62-0.78); and 1.68 for SOFA (0.60-0.76) scores. Pair wise comparison of AUC between MEDS, SAPSII, SOFA and Lactate were not significant.
conclusionAccording to our results; SOFA, SAPSII and MEDS were not sufficient to predict mortality. Also this result, MEDS was better than other scoring system.
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.