ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Role of qSOFA and SOFA Scoring Systems for Predicting In-Hospital Risk of Deterioration in the Emergency Department.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Synergistic Effects of Combined Diet and Exercise on Body Composition in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2025Pooled it
- Comparing the Predictive Value of SOFA and SIRS for Mortality in the Early Hours of Hospitalization of Sepsis Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Archives of Iranian medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Deep Learning-Based Early Warning Systems in Hospitalized Patients at Risk of Code Blue Events and Length of Stay: Retrospective Real-World Implementation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Exploring the Potentials of Artificial Intelligence in Sepsis Management in the Intensive Care Unit.Critical care research and practice · 2025Review
- Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment to identify clinical deterioration in adults with COVID-19: a retrospective cohort.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2025Article
- Prognostic Accuracy of SOFA, qSOFA, and SIRS for Mortality Among Emergency Department Patients with Infections.Infection and drug resistance · 2021Article
- Thrombo-inflammatory biomarkers to predict sepsis outcome.International journal of immunopathology and pharmacologyObservational
- Acute organ failure and risk of admission to intensive medical care in cancer patients: a single center prospective cohort study.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensivaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to analyze and compare the usefulness of quick sequential organ failure assessment score (qSOFA) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores for the detection of early (two-day) mortality in patients transported by emergency medical services (EMSs) to the emergency department (ED) (infectious and non-infectious). We performed a multicentric, prospective and blinded end-point study in adults transported with high priority by ambulance from the scene to the ED with the participation of five hospitals. For each score, the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was calculated. We included 870 patients in the final cohort. The median age was 70 years (IQR 54-81 years), and 338 (38.8%) of the participants were women. Two-day mortality was 8.3% (73 cases), and 20.9% of cases were of an infectious pathology. For two-day mortality, the qSOFA presented an AUC of 0.812 (95% CI: 0.75-0.87;
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.