ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2021
Performance of NEWS2, RETTS, clinical judgment and the Predict Sepsis screening tools with respect to identification of sepsis among ambulance patients with suspected infection: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03249597 (Predict Sepsis; the Predictive Value of Bedside Measures in the Ambulance), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Predict Sepsis; the Predictive Value of Bedside Measures in the Ambulance
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between daily vital signs during radiotherapy and severe infection in cancer patients: A case-control study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Multicenter Prospective Validation of an Updated Proprietary Sepsis Prediction Model.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Association between hospital frailty risk score, risk of sepsis and adverse outcomes across all adult ages.PloS one · 2026Article
- Performance of Early Sepsis Screening Tools for Timely Diagnosis and Antibiotic Stewardship in a Resource-Limited Thai Community Hospital.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The performance of screening tools and use of blood analyses in prehospital identification of sepsis patients and patients suitable for non-conveyance - an observational study.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Observational
- Article
- Comparing In-Hospital Mortality Prediction by Senior Emergency Resident's Judgment and Prognostic Models in the Emergency Department.BioMed research international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is little evidence of which sepsis screening tool to use in the ambulance setting. The primary aim of the current study was to compare the performance of NEWS2 (National Early Warning score 2) and RETTS (Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System) with respect to identification of sepsis among ambulance patients with clinically suspected infection. The secondary aim was to compare the performance of the novel Predict Sepsis screening tools with that of NEWS2, RETTS and clinical judgment.
methodsProspective cohort study of 323 adult ambulance patients with clinically suspected infection, transported to hospitals in Stockholm, during 2017/2018. The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC (Area Under the receiver operating Curve) were calculated and compared by using McNemar´s test and DeLong's test.
resultsThe prevalence of sepsis in the current study population was 44.6% (144 of 323 patients). No significant difference in AUC was demonstrated between NEWS2 ≥ 5 and RETTS ≥ orange. NEWS2 ≥ 7 demonstrated a significantly greater AUC than RETTS red. The Predict Sepsis screening tools ≥ 2 demonstrated the highest sensitivity (range 0.87-0.91), along with RETTS ≥ orange (0.83), but the lowest specificity (range 0.39-0.49). The AUC of NEWS2 (0.73) and the Predict Sepsis screening tools (range 0.75-0.77) was similar.
conclusionsThe results indicate that NEWS2 could be the better alternative for sepsis identification in the ambulance, as compared to RETTS. The Predict Sepsis screening tools demonstrated a high sensitivity and AUCs similar to that of NEWS2. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution as the Predict Sepsis screening tools require external validation.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03249597. Registered 15 August 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03249597 .
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.