ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2019
Accuracy of qSOFA for the diagnosis of sepsis-3: a secondary analysis of a population-based cohort study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic accuracy of PCT, IL-6, and MR-ProADM for early identification of sepsis in the emergency department.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026Observational
- The Clinical and Economic Value of Incorporating Monocyte Distribution Width Testing in the Detection of Occult Sepsis.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026Article
- Accuracy of the modified Global Burden of Disease International Classification of Diseases coding methods for identifying sepsis: a prospective multicentre cohort study.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Observational
- Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Sepsis in Adult Patients Meeting Two or More Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome Criteria.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Prognostic evaluation of quick sequential organ failure assessment score in ICU patients with sepsis across different income settings.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Observational
- Development and Validation of Deep-Learning-Based Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Prediction System (DeepSEPS) Using Real-World ICU Data.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Biomarker-Based Assessment Model for Detecting Sepsis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Audit of a computerized version of the Manchester triage system and a SIRS-based system for the detection of sepsis at triage in the emergency department.International journal of emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of monocyte distribution width and procalcitonin in sepsis cases in the emergency department: a prospective cohort study.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- A simple measure to improve sepsis documentation and coding.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2021Article
- [Critical statement on selected recommendations of the new German S3 Sepsis Guideline].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2020Article
- Predictive Accuracy of the Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment Score in Brazil. A Prospective Multicenter Study.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2020Observational
- Comparison of Monocyte Distribution Width (MDW) and Procalcitonin for early recognition of sepsis.PloS one · 2020Observational
- Back to Basics: Recognition of Sepsis with New Definition.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to evaluate the accuracy of quick Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) for the diagnosis of sepsis-3, and to analyze the prognosis of infected patients in wards over-diagnosed with qSOFA but missed by sepsis-3, and those missed by qSOFA but in accordance with sepsis-3 criteria. We also intended to validate the performance of qSOFA as one predictor of outcome in patients with suspicion of infection.
methodsWe reviewed the medical records of 1,716 adult patients with infection who were hospitalized from July 1
resultsAmong the 1,716 patients with infection, there were 935 patients (54.5%) with sepsis, and 640 patients (37.3%) with qSOFA ≥2. There were 610 patients in the qSOFA(-)sepsis(-) group, 171 in the qSOFA(+)sepsis(-) group, 466 in the qSOFA(-)sepsis(+) group, and 469 in the qSOFA(+)sepsis(+) group. In the logistic regression analysis, increasing age, bedridden status, and malignancy were all independent risk factors of hospital mortality. Sepsis and qSOFA ≥2 were also independent risk factors of hospital mortality, with an adjusted OR of 3.85 (95% CI: 2.70-5.50) and 13.92 (95% CI: 9.87-16.93) respectively. qSOFA had a sensitivity of 50.2% and a specificity of 78.1% for sepsis-3. The false-positive [qSOFA(+)sepsis(-)] group had 38 patients (22.2%) die during hospitalization, and an adjusted OR of 9.20 (95% CI: 4.86-17.38). In addition, the false-negative [qSOFA(-)sepsis(+)] group had a hospital mortality rate of 7.3% (34/466) and an adjusted OR of 2.59 (95% CI: 1.39-4.83). In comparison, patients meeting neither qSOFA nor sepsis criteria had the lowest hospital mortality [2.6% (16/610)], whereas patients with both qSOFA ≥2 and sepsis had the highest hospital mortality [56.5% (265/469)], with an adjusted OR of 42.02 (95% CI: 24.31-72.64). The discrimination of in-hospital mortality using qSOFA (AUROC, 0.846; 95% CI, 0.824-0.868) was greater compared with sepsis-3 criteria (AUROC, 0.834; 95% CI, 0.805-0.863; P<0.001).
conclusionsIn our analysis, the sensitivity(Se) of qSOFA for the diagnosis of sepsis was lower, and qSOFA score ≥2 might identify a group of patients at a higher risk of mortality, regardless of being septic or not.
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.