ArticleWorld journal of surgery2020
The Combined SIRS + qSOFA (qSIRS) Score is More Accurate Than qSOFA Alone in Predicting Mortality in Patients with Surgical Sepsis in an LMIC Emergency Department.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2020. 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Article
- Development and validation of a patient-specific model to predict postoperative SIRS in older patients: A two-center study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Antimicrobial Challenge in Acute Care Surgery.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Prognostic value of diagnostic scales in community-acquired sepsis mortality at an emergency service. Prognosis in community-adquired sepsis.BMC emergency medicine · 2021Observational
- QSIRS Can Improve Accuracy of QSOFA and SIRS in Prediction of Mortality in Surgical Emergencies.Surgery journal (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Article
- National Early Warning Score in Predicting Severe Adverse Outcomes of Emergency Medicine Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2021Article
- NEWS and qSIRS superior to qSOFA in the prediction of 30-day mortality in emergency department patients in Hong Kong.Annals of medicine · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundqSOFA has been proposed as a prognostic tool in patients with sepsis. This study set out to assess the sensitivity of several scores, namely: the pre-ICU qSOFA, the qSOFA with lactate (qSOFA L), SIRS score, qSOFA + SIRS score (qSIRS) and qSIRS with lactate (qSIRS L) in predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with surgical sepsis as well as the sensitivity of these scores in predicting high-grade sepsis. The secondary aim was to determine which of these scores is best suited to predict high-grade surgical sepsis.
methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study that was conducted between December 2012 and August 2017 in a public metropolitan surgical service. Data from patients aged > 13 years, who were admitted to the hospital and who had an emergency surgical procedure for source control were retrieved from a prospectively maintained hybrid electronic database. The qSOFA, qSOFA plus lactate (qSOFA L), SIRS and qSOFA + SIRS (qSIRS), as well as the qSIRS plus lactate (qSIRS L), were calculated for each patient. A lactate level that was greater than 2mmol/L was deemed to be a positive finding. Any score ≥2 was deemed to be a positive score. The outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. The prognostic value of qSOFA, qSOFA L, SIRS, qSIRS and qSIRS L was studied. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to determine the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative likelihood ratios for positive qSOFA, qSOFA L, SIRS, qSIRS, and qSIRS L. Contingency tables were used to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV for predicting severe or high-grade surgical sepsis.
resultsThere were a total number of 1884 patients in the sample group of whom 855 were female (45.4%). The median patient age was 36 years (IQR 23-56). A total of 1489 patients (79%) were deemed to have high-grade sepsis based on an advanced EGS AAST grading, whilst 395 patients (21%) had low-grade sepsis. A total of 71 patients died (3.8%). Of these patients who died, 67 (94.4%) had high-grade sepsis and 4 (5.6%) had low-grade sepsis. The mortality rate in the high-grade sepsis group was 4.5%, whilst the mortality rate in the low-grade sepsis group was 1%. The scores with the greatest accuracy in predicting mortality were qSIRS (AUROC 0.731, 95% CI 0.68-0.78), followed by SIRS (AUROC 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75). The qSOFA and qSOFA L were the least accurate in predicting mortality (AUROC 0.684, 95% CI 0.63-0.74 for both). The addition of lactate had no significant effect on the accuracy of the five scores in predicting mortality. Patients with a qSOFA ≥ 2 have an increased risk of dying (OR 5.8), as do patients with a SIRS score ≥2 (OR 2.7). qSIRS L had the highest sensitivity (69%) in predicting the presence of high-grade surgical sepsis, followed by qSIRS (65.5% sensitivity). qSOFA showed a very low sensitivity of only 4.5% and a high specificity of 99.2%. The addition of lactate to the score marginally improved the sensitivity. Lactate of 2mmol/L or more was also an independent predictor of high-grade sepsis.
conclusionThe qSIRS score is most accurate in predicting mortality in surgical sepsis. The qSOFA score is inferior to both the SIRS and the qSIRS scores in predicting mortality. The qSIRS score with the addition of lactate to the qSIRS score made it the most sensitive score in predicting high-grade surgical sepsis.
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.