ArticleEClinicalMedicine2021
A comparison of different scores for diagnosis and mortality prediction of adults with sepsis in Low-and-Middle
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Immediate or high-dose antituberculosis therapy for HIV-related sepsis in Tanzania and Uganda (ATLAS): a phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled, 2 × 2 factorial, superiority trial.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2026Trial
- Predictive Performance of Sepsis Scoring Tools for In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients With Suspected Sepsis Presenting to the Colonial War Memorial Hospital Emergency Department, Fiji.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2026Observational
- Mortality prediction by quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, National Early Warning Score 2, Shock Index, and Modified Shock Index in suspected sepsis: A retrospective study.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Observational
- Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2026.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Challenges in early detection and prognostication of sepsis: new approaches from the emergency department and intensive care unit.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- The Global Impact of Sepsis: Epidemiology, Recognition, Management, and Health System Challenges.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Machine Learning Model for Sepsis Prediction in Prolonged and Chronic Critical Illness: Development and Validation Using Retrospective Real-World ICU Data.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Impact of an Emergency Triage Nursing Strategy on Early Recognition and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Sepsis: A Single-Center Retrospective Pre-Post Case-Note Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Clinical significance of controlling nutritional status score in predicting ICU admission, prolonged hospitalization, and in-hospital mortality in emergency sepsis: a single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- A Real-Time Prospective Evaluation of the Prognostic Accuracy of SIRS, MEWS, NEWS2 and qSOFA in Predicting ICU Admission and Mortality in an Emergency Department: Implications for Nursing Practice.Nursing in critical care · 2026Observational
- Prognostic Value of the AST/ALT Ratio in Patients with Septic Shock: A Prospective, Multicenter, Registry-Based Observational Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Associations between Organ Dysfunction Scoring Systems and Dysregulated Host Responses in Adults with Severe Infection in Uganda: A Prospective Cohort Study.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a prediction model for in-hospital mortality in patients with sepsis.Nursing in critical care · 2025Article
- Improved Interpretability Without Performance Reduction in a Sepsis Prediction Risk Score.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- The Sepsis Score Dilemma: Balancing Precision and Utility.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024Article
- Assessment of a novel BLOOMY score for predicting mortality in hospitalised adults with bloodstream infection.Infection · 2024Article
- The Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Position Statement on the Management of Sepsis in Resource-limited Settings.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 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
10 authors at 7 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical scores for sepsis have been primarily developed for, and applied in High-Income Countries. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the performance of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), and Universal Vital Assessment (UVA) scores for diagnosis and prediction of mortality in patients with suspected infection in Low-and-Middle-Income Countries. Methods: PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched until May 18, 2021. Studies reporting the performance of at least one of the above-mentioned scores for predicting mortality in patients of 15 years of age and older with suspected infection or sepsis were eligible. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used for risk-of-bias assessment. PRISMA guidelines were followed (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020153906). The bivariate random-effects regression model was used to pool the individual sensitivities, specificities and areas-under-the-curve (AUC). Findings: Twenty-four articles (of 5669 identified) with 27,237 patients were eligible for inclusion. qSOFA pooled sensitivity was 0·70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0·60-0·78), specificity 0·73 (95% CI 0·67-0·79), and AUC 0·77 (95% CI 0·72-0·82). SIRS pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 0·88 (95% CI 0·79 -0·93), 0·34 (95% CI 0·25-0·44), and 0·69 (95% CI 0·50-0·83), respectively. MEWS pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 0·70 (95% CI 0·57 -0·81), 0·61 (95% CI 0·42-0·77), and 0·72 (95% CI 0·64-0·77), respectively. UVA pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 0·49 (95% CI 0·33 -0·65), 0·91(95% CI 0·84-0·96), and 0·76 (95% CI 0·44-0·93), respectively. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the pooled analysis. Interpretation: Individual score performances ranged from poor to acceptable. Future studies should combine selected or modified elements of different scores. Funding: Partially funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (17/63/42).
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.