ArticleHealth science reports2023
Combining C-reactive protein and quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) to improve prognostic accuracy for sepsis and mortality in adult inpatients: A systematic review.
Article in Health science reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025Guideline
- Evaluation of the modified quick sequential organ failure assessment scoring system for triage and prognostic assessment in canine emergency and critically ill patients: a retrospective study.BMC veterinary research · 2025Article
- Article
- Combining C-reactive protein and quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) to improve prognostic accuracy for sepsis and mortality in adult inpatients: A systematic review.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Septic encephalopathy in the elderly - biomarkers of potential clinical utility.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Infections are common in hospitals, and if mismanaged can develop into sepsis, a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. This study aimed to examine whether combining C-reactive protein (CRP) with the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) improves its accuracy for predicting mortality and sepsis in adult inpatients. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, CINAHL, Open Grey, Grey Literature Report, and the Clinical Trials registry were searched using CRP and qSOFA search terms. Title, abstract, and full-text screening were performed by two independent reviewers using pre-determined eligibility criteria, followed by data extraction and a risk of bias assessment using the Quality Assessment tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Disagreements were settled through discussion and consultation with a third reviewer. Results: Four retrospective studies with a total of 2070 patients were included in this review. Adding CRP to qSOFA improved the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve up to 9.7% for predicting mortality and by 14.9% for identifying sepsis. The sensitivity and specificity of the combined score for mortality prediction were available in two studies. CRP improved the sensitivity of qSOFA by 43% and 71% while only decreasing the specificity by 12% and 7%, respectively. A meta-analysis was not performed due to study heterogeneity. Conclusion: This comprehensive review provided initial evidence that combining CRP with qSOFA may improve the accuracy of qSOFA alone in identifying sepsis or patients at risk of dying in hospital. The combined tool demonstrated the potential to improve patient outcomes, with implications for low-resource settings given its simplicity and low-cost.
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.