Observational studyGhana medical journal2022
Comparison of qSOFA Score, SIRS Criteria, and SOFA Score as predictors of mortality in patients with sepsis.
Observational study in Ghana medical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prognostic models for predicting intensive care unit admission or mortality in critically ill adults not yet been admitted to the intensive care unit.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Sepsis screening tools in resource-limited settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy in low- and middle-income countries.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- A Nomogram for Diagnosing Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia Using Circulating Inflammation Indicators in ICU Patients.Journal of inflammation research · 2025Article
- Predictive Value of Serum β2-Microglobulin for 28-Day Mortality in Sepsis Patients in the Emergency Department.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- Prognostic evaluation of quick sequential organ failure assessment score in ICU patients with sepsis across different income settings.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Early diagnosis and treatment of sepsis are associated with a better outcome. With the change in the definition of sepsis, SOFA score and qSOFA score (heart rate, systolic blood pressure and Glasgow coma scale) were introduced and SIRS criteria were removed. This study compared the qSOFA score, SIRS criteria and SOFA score as predictors of mortality in patients with sepsis. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: Department of General Medicine of a tertiary hospital. Participants: The study included 116 patients. Interventions: SOFA scores (range, 0 [best] to 24 [worst] points), SIRS status (range, 0 [best] to 4 [worst] criteria), and qSOFA scores (range, 0 [best] to 3 [worst] points) were calculated using physiological and laboratory parameters recorded within the first 24 hours of ICU admission. Main outcome measures: SOFA, qSOFA, and SIRS scores were calculated and measured using physiological and laboratory parameters. Patients were followed till mortality (non-survivors) or discharge from the hospital (survivors). Data were analysed using software SPSS version 20. Results: 54 (46.6%) of included patients died. Higher SOFA, qSOFA, and SIRS scores; tachycardia; hypotension; hypoxemia; basophilia; hypoproteinemia; hypoalbuminemia; and need for inotropic support and mechanical ventilation significantly associated with increased mortality. The area under the receiver operating curve for qSOFA ≥2 (0.678; p=0.001) and SOFA (0.74; p=0.000) were comparable and significant, whereas SIRS ≥2 (0.580, p=0.139) was not statistically significant. Conclusions: A qSOFA score of greater than 2 is comparable to SOFA and is better than SIRS score greater than 2 for predicting mortality. Funding: None indicated.
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.