ArticleCureus2020
The Utility of Early Warning Score in Adults Presenting With Sepsis in the Emergency Department of a Low Resource Setting.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sepsis screening tools in resource-limited settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy in low- and middle-income countries.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Revolutionizing Chronic Heart Disease Management: The Role of IoT-Based Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring System.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Sepsis is a condition with high mortality and morbidity. Delay in early recognition and prompt management results in higher mortality. There are many clinical scores to identify early sepsis; however, Early Warning Score (EWS) has clinical/physiological parameters that are easy to apply in the ED for timely diagnosis and management. In the present study, we collected information regarding the utilization of EWS in timely identifying the sick patients at triage of a tertiary care center. Methods This study was a descriptive cross-sectional investigation conducted in the ED of Aga Khan University Hospital in Karachi, the largest metropolitan city in Pakistan. A total of 240 participants were selected by non-probability convenient sampling after fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Data collected included EWS criteria, demography, length of hospital stay, patient disposition (ward, intensive care or high dependency area), and differentials like sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock. Results A total of 240 patients were enrolled, out of which 139 (57.9%) patients were male, and 101 (42.1%) were female with a mean age of 52.7 ± 15.3 years (range: 18 to 80 years). In this study, the length of stay (LOS) was 2.2 ± 1.1 (range: one to six days), and there was an EWS of 8.2 ± 2.6 (4-15). There were 143 patients in the elderly age group > 50 years (59.6%); however, most elderly presented with sepsis among both age groups. The least affected age group was aged 16 to 30 years, with 23 (9.6%) cases. An EWS >7 is best to detect cases with sepsis or severe sepsis with a sensitivity of 98.5% (95% CI: 92.13 to 99.92) and specificity of 89.57% (95% CI: 82.64 to 93.93). Similarly, the EWS for severe sepsis or septic shock was >9 with a sensitivity of 86.76% (95% CI: 76.72 to 92.88) and specificity of 88.24% (95% CI: 78.47 to 93.92). Conclusions This study revealed that the sensitivity and specificity of EWS for the detection of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock was found to be high; hence, it could be a valuable and readily useable system for early diagnosis and proper management of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock.
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.