ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2022
The Accuracy of Sepsis Screening Score for Mortality Prediction at Emergency Department Triage.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2022. 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.
- Interpretable Machine Learning Model for Predicting Sepsis and Septic Shock Among Patients with Documented Fever at Emergency Department Triage Using Patients' Historical Data.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Early prognostication for ICU patients with combined respiratory and circulatory failure: an interpretable machine learning approach.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The predictive performance of NEWS, MEWS, SOFA and SAPS II in outcomes of bacteremic and non-bacteremic sepsis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Observational
- Performance of Early Sepsis Screening Tools for Timely Diagnosis and Antibiotic Stewardship in a Resource-Limited Thai Community Hospital.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- National Early Warning Score in Predicting Adverse Outcomes for Patients Admitted to Emergency Department; a Prognostic Accuracy Study.Archives of academic emergency 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSepsis has a mortality rate of 10-40% worldwide. Many screening tools for sepsis prediction and for emergency department (ED) triage are controversial. This study compared the accuracy of the scores for predicting 28-day mortality in adult patients with sepsis in the triage area of the ED.
methodsAdult patients who presented to the ED of a tertiary-care university hospital from January-December 2019 with an initial diagnosis of sepsis or other infection-related conditions were enrolled. We calculated predictive scores using information collected in the ED triage area. Prognostic accuracy was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for predicting 28-day mortality as a primary outcome. The secondary outcomes included mechanical ventilation usage and vasopressor usage for 28 days.
resultsWe analyzed a total of 550 patients. The 28-day mortality rate was 12.4% (n = 68). The 28-day mortality rate was best detected by the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) (AUROC = 0.770; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.705-0.835), followed by the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score (AUROC = 0.7473; 95% CI: 0.688-0.806), Search Out Severity (SOS) score (AUROC = 0.749; 95% CI: 0.685-0.815), Emergency Severity Index (ESI) triage (AUROC = 0.599; 95% CI: 0.542-0.656, and the Systemic Inflammatory Response System (SIRS) criteria (AUROC = 0.588; 95% CI: 0.522-0.654]). The NEWS also provided a higher AUROC and outperformed for 28-day mechanical ventilator usage and 28-day vasopressor usage.
conclusionThe NEWS outperforms qSOFA, SOS, SIRS, and ESI triage in predicting 28-day mortality, mechanical ventilator, and vasopressor usage of a patient with sepsis who is seen at ED triage.
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.