ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2021
Frequency of alterations in qSOFA, SIRS, MEWS and NEWS scores during the emergency department stay in infectious patients: a prospective study.
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Probable Non-Ventilator-Associated Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia: A Case Report.Critical care nurse · 2024Article
- Modified Early Warning Score: Clinical Deterioration of Mexican Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 and Chronic Disease.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- An external validation study of the Score for Emergency Risk Prediction (SERP), an interpretable machine learning-based triage score for the emergency department.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Combination of Prehospital NT-proBNP with qSOFA and NEWS to Predict Sepsis and Sepsis-Related Mortality.Disease markers · 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
backgroundFor emergency department (ED) patients with suspected infection, a vital sign-based clinical rule is often calculated shortly after the patient arrives. The clinical rule score (normal or abnormal) provides information about diagnosis and/or prognosis. Since vital signs vary over time, the clinical rule scores can change as well. In this prospective multicentre study, we investigate how often the scores of four frequently used clinical rules change during the ED stay of patients with suspected infection.
methodsAdult (≥ 18 years) patients with suspected infection were prospectively included in three Dutch EDs between March 2016 and December 2019. Vital signs were measured in 30-min intervals and the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, the Modified Early Warning Score and the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) score were calculated. Using the established cut-off points, we analysed how often alterations in clinical rule scores occurred (i.e. switched from normal to abnormal or vice versa). In addition, we investigated which vital signs caused most alterations.
resultsWe included 1433 patients, of whom a clinical rule score changed once or more in 637 (44.5%) patients. In 6.7-17.5% (depending on the clinical rule) of patients with an initial negative clinical rule score, a positive score occurred later during ED stay. In over half (54.3-65.0%) of patients with an initial positive clinical rule score, the score became negative later on. The respiratory rate caused most (51.2%) alterations.
conclusionAfter ED arrival, alterations in qSOFA, SIRS, MEWS and/or NEWS score are present in almost half of patients with suspected infection. The most contributing vital sign to these alterations was the respiratory rate. One in 6-15 patients displayed an abnormal clinical rule score after a normal initial score. Clinicians should be aware of the frequency of these alterations in clinical rule scores, as clinical rules are widely used for diagnosis and/or prognosis and the optimal moment of assessing them is unknown.
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.