Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36240177›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Predictive validity of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score for the mortality in patients with sepsis in Vietnamese intensive care units.

Son Ngoc Do, Chinh Quoc Luong, My Ha Nguyen, Dung Thi Pham, Nga Thi Nguyen, Dai Quang Huynh, Quoc Trong Ai Hoang, Co Xuan Dao, Thang Dinh Vu, Ha Nhat Bui and 15 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors.

Son Ngoc DoCenter for Critical Care Medicine, Bach Mai Hospital, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Chinh Quoc LuongDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam.ORCID 0000-0002-6409-577X
My Ha NguyenDepartment of Health Organization and Management, Faculty of Public Health, Thai Binh University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Thai Binh, Vietnam.
Dung Thi PhamDepartment of Nutrition and Food Safety, Faculty of Public Health, Thai Binh University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Thai Binh, Vietnam.
Nga Thi NguyenDepartment of Intensive Care and Poison Control, Vietnam-Czechoslovakia Friendship Hospital, Hai Phong, Vietnam.
Dai Quang HuynhIntensive Care Department, Cho Ray Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Quoc Trong Ai HoangEmergency Department, Hue Central General Hospital, Hue City, Thua Thien Hue, Vietnam.
Co Xuan DaoCenter for Critical Care Medicine, Bach Mai Hospital, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Thang Dinh VuIntensive Care Unit, People's Hospital 115, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Ha Nhat BuiIntensive Care Unit, Bai Chay General Hospital, Quang Ninh, Vietnam.
Hung Tan NguyenIntensive Care Unit, Da Nang Hospital, Da Nang City, Vietnam.
Hai Bui HoangDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Thuy Thi Phuong LeIntensive Care Unit, Dong Da General Hospital, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Lien Thi Bao NguyenIntensive Care Unit, Saint Paul General Hospital, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Phuoc Thien DuongIntensive Care Unit, Can Tho Central General Hospital, Can Tho, Vietnam.
Tuan Dang NguyenIntensive Care Unit, Vinmec Times City International Hospital, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Vuong Hung LeIntensive Care Unit, Thai Nguyen National Hospital, Thai Nguyen, Vietnam.
Giang Thi Tra PhamEmergency Department, Thanh Nhan General Hospital, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Tam Van BuiDepartment of Intensive Care and Poison Control, Vietnam-Czechoslovakia Friendship Hospital, Hai Phong, Vietnam.
Giang Thi Huong BuiCenter for Critical Care Medicine, Bach Mai Hospital, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Jason PhuaFAST and Chronic Programmes, Alexandra Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
Andrew LiDivision of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
Thao Thi Ngoc PhamIntensive Care Department, Cho Ray Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Chi Van NguyenDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Anh Dat NguyenDepartment of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe simple scoring systems for predicting the outcome of sepsis in intensive care units (ICUs) are few, especially for limited-resource settings. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in predicting the mortality of ICU patients with sepsis in Vietnam.

methodsWe did a multicenter cross-sectional study of patients with sepsis (≥18 years old) presenting to 15 adult ICUs throughout Vietnam on the specified days (i.e., 9th January, 3rd April, 3rd July, and 9th October) representing the different seasons of 2019. The primary and secondary outcomes were the hospital and ICU all-cause mortalities, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated to determine the discriminatory ability of the qSOFA score for deaths in the hospital and ICU. The cut-off value of the qSOFA scores was determined by the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Upon ICU admission, factors associated with the hospital and ICU mortalities were assessed in univariable and multivariable logistic models.

resultsOf 252 patients, 40.1% died in the hospital, and 33.3% died in the ICU. The qSOFA score had a poor discriminatory ability for both the hospital (AUROC: 0.610 [95% CI: 0.538 to 0.681]; cut-off value: ≥2.5; sensitivity: 34.7%; specificity: 84.1%; PAUROC = 0.003) and ICU (AUROC: 0.619 [95% CI: 0.544 to 0.694]; cutoff value: ≥2.5; sensitivity: 36.9%; specificity: 83.3%; PAUROC = 0.002) mortalities. However, multivariable logistic regression analyses show that the qSOFA score of 3 was independently associated with the increased risk of deaths in both the hospital (adjusted odds ratio, AOR: 3.358; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.756 to 6.422) and the ICU (AOR: 3.060; 95% CI: 1.651 to 5.671).

conclusionIn our study, despite having a poor discriminatory value, the qSOFA score seems worthwhile in predicting mortality in ICU patients with sepsis in limited-resource settings. CLINICAL

trial registrationClinical trials registry-India: CTRI/2019/01/016898.

Indexed as

Organ Dysfunction ScoresSepsisAdolescentAdultAsian PeopleCross-Sectional StudiesHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesROC CurveVietnam

Identifiers

PMID36240177
PMCPMC9565713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.