Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32166285›Full record

ReviewCritical care explorations2019

Accuracy of Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score to Predict Sepsis Mortality in 121 Studies Including 1,716,017 Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Velma Herwanto, Amith Shetty, Marek Nalos, Mandira Chakraborty, Anthony McLean, Guy D Eslick, Benjamin Tang

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care explorations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Velma HerwantoDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Nepean Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Amith ShettyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Marek NalosDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Nepean Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Mandira ChakrabortyDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Nepean Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Anthony McLeanDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Nepean Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Guy D EslickNepean Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Benjamin TangDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Nepean Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Nepean Hospital · AUThe University of Sydney · AUWestmead Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We performed a meta-analysis to assess whether the newly introduced quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score could predict sepsis outcomes and compared its performance to systematic inflammatory response syndrome, the previously widely used screening criteria for sepsis. DATA SOURCES: We searched multiple electronic databases including MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar (up to March 1, 2019) that evaluated quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, or both (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO]: CRD42018103327). STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if the outcome was mortality, organ dysfunction, admission to ICU, ventilatory support, or prolonged ICU stay and if prediction performance was reported as either area under the curve, odds ratio, sensitivity, or specificity. DATA EXTRACTION: The criterion validity of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria were assessed by measuring its predictive validity for primary (mortality) and secondary outcomes in pooled metrics as mentioned. The data were analyzed using random effects model, and heterogeneity was explored using prespecified subgroups analyses. DATA SYNTHESIS: We screened 1,340 studies, of which 121 studies (including data for 1,716,017 individuals) were analyzed. For mortality prediction, the pooled area under the curve was higher for quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (0.702; 95% CI, 0.685-0.718;

conclusionsOverall, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score outperforms systemic inflammatory response syndrome in predicting sepsis outcome, but quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score has relative strengths/weaknesses (more specific but less sensitive) compared with systemic inflammatory response syndrome.

Indexed as

meta-analysismortalityquick Sequential Organ Failure Assessmentsepsissystemic inflammatory response syndrome

Identifiers

PMID32166285
PMCPMC7063937
OpenAlexW2974728555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.