ArticlePloS one2023
The prognostic utility of prehospital qSOFA in addition to emergency department qSOFA for sepsis in patients with suspected infection: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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.
- Hypoglycemic Events Focusing on Situational Factors, Bystander Identification, and Prehospital Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative Prognostic Performance of qSOFA and SOFA in Emergency Department Patients With Established Septic Shock.Emergency medicine international · 2026Article
- [Quality of early sepsis diagnostics in German intensive care units-Results of a nationwide survey].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2025Article
- The sepsis journey and where digital alerts can help: a qualitative, interview study with survivors and family members in England.Frontiers in public health · 2025Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) was widely used to estimate the risks of sepsis in patients with suspected infection in the prehospital and emergency department (ED) settings. Due to the insufficient sensitivity of qSOFA on arrival at the ED (ED qSOFA), the Surviving Sepsis Campaign 2021 recommended against using qSOFA as a single screening tool for sepsis. However, it remains unclear whether the combined use of prehospital and ED qSOFA improves its sensitivity for identifying patients at a higher risk of sepsis at the ED.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data from the ED of a tertiary medical center in Japan from April 2018 through March 2021. Among all adult patients (aged ≥18 years) transported by ambulance to the ED with suspected infection, we identified patients who were subsequently diagnosed with sepsis based on the Sepsis-3 criteria. We compared the predictive abilities of prehospital qSOFA, ED qSOFA, and the sum of prehospital and ED qSOFA (combined qSOFA) for sepsis in patients with suspected infection at the ED.
resultsAmong 2,407 patients with suspected infection transported to the ED by ambulance, 369 (15%) patients were subsequently diagnosed with sepsis, and 217 (9%) died during hospitalization. The sensitivity of prehospital qSOFA ≥2 and ED qSOFA ≥2 were comparable (c-statistics for sepsis [95%CI], 0.57 [0.52-0.62] vs. 0.55 [0.50-0.60]). However, combined qSOFA (cutoff, ≥3 [max 6]) was more sensitive than ED qSOFA (cutoff, ≥2) for identifying sepsis (0.67 [95%CI, 0.62-0.72] vs. 0.55 [95%CI, 0.50-0.60]). Using combined qSOFA, we identified 44 (12%) out of 369 patients who were subsequently diagnosed with sepsis, which would have been missed using ED qSOFA alone.
conclusionsUsing both prehospital and ED qSOFA could improve the screening ability of sepsis among patients with suspected infection at the ED.
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.