ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Prognostic performance of the REDS score, SOFA score, NEWS2 score, and the red-flag, NICE high-risk, and SIRS criteria to predict survival at 180 days, in emergency department patients admitted with suspected sepsis - An observational cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- qREDS score compared with the REDS and NEWS2 scores to risk-stratify emergency department suspected sepsis patients for in-hospital mortality and 168-hour survival probability: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Validation of the REDS score in hospitalised patients who deteriorated and were admitted to the intensive care unit-a retrospective cohort study.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- Continuous monitoring of physiological data using the patient vital status fusion score in septic critical care patients.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients admitted to hospital with sepsis are at persistent risk of poor outcome after discharge. Many tools are available to risk-stratify sepsis patients for in-hospital mortality. This study aimed to identify the best risk-stratification tool to prognosticate outcome 180 days after admission Methods: A retrospective observational cohort study was performed of adult ED patients who were admitted after receiving intravenous antibiotics for the treatment of a suspected sepsis, between 1 Results: Of the 1,057 patients studied 146 (13.8%) died at hospital discharge and 284 were known to have died within 180 days. Overall survival proportion was 74.4% at 180 days and 8.6% of the population was censored before 180 days. Only the REDS and SOFA scores identified less than 50% of the population as high-risk. All tools except the SIRS criteria, prognosticated for outcome at 180 days; Log-rank tests between high and low-risk groups were: REDS score Conclusion: In this study, all the risk-stratification tools studied were found to prognosticate for outcome at 180 days, except the SIRS criteria. The REDS and SOFA scores outperformed the other tools.
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.