ArticleMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2022
Performance of qSOFA, SIRS, and the qSOFA + SIRS combinations for predicting 30-day adverse outcomes in patients with suspected infection.
Article in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Accuracy of prognostic scoring tools for ICU triage and mortality among patients in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Pooled it
- Screening tools for sepsis identification in paramedicine and other emergency contexts: a rapid systematic review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Prognostic Accuracy of qSOFA and SIRS for Mortality in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Prospective Studies.Emergency medicine international · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of the quick sequential organ failure assessment score (qSOFA) score and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to identify patients at high risk for adverse outcomes in the emergency department (ED) remains controversial due to their low predictive performance and lack of supporting evidence. This study aimed to determine the predictive performance of qSOFA, SIRS, and the qSOFA + SIRS combinations for adverse outcomes.
methodsAll adult patients admitted to the ED with suspected infection were prospectively included. qSOFA scores ≥ 2, SIRS score ≥ 2 were defined as risk-positive for adverse outcome. Furthermore, combination‑1, which was defined as either qSOFA or SIRS positivity, and combination‑2, which was defined as both qSOFA and SIRS positivity, were also considered as risk-positive for adverse outcome. The predictive performance of qSOFA, SIRS, combination‑1, and combination‑2 for a composite adverse outcome within 30 days, including mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and non-ICU hospitalization, were determined.
resultsA total of 350 patients were included in the analysis. The composite outcome occurred in 211 (60.3%) patients within 30 days: mortality in 84 (24%), ICU admission in 78 (22.3%), and non-ICU hospitalization in 154 (44%). The sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were determined in predicting composite outcome as 0.34 and 0.93 for qSOFA, 0.81 and 0.31 for SIRS, 0.84 and 0.28 for combination‑1, and 0.31 and 0.96 for combination‑2.
conclusionThe study results suggest that qSOFA and combination‑2 could be a useful tool for confirming patients at high risk for adverse outcomes. Although SIRS and combination‑1 could be helpful for excluding high-risk patients, the requirement of white blood cell counts limits their utilization for screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34586431What 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.