ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2024
Head-to-head comparison of pre-hospital qSOFA and lactate-qSOFA for predicting sepsis in patients with and without suspected infection. A multicenter prospective cohort study.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The aim of the study was to compare the Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment tools (qSOFA), and Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment-Lactate (LqSOFA) to detect pre-hospital sepsis among patients with or without suspicion of infection. Material and methods: Multicenter prospective cohort study in non-traumatic patients attended by Advanced Life Support in the prehospital environment and transferred to the hospital. We collected demographic, physiological, clinical, and analytical variables, main diagnosis, hospital admission and clinical diagnosis of sepsis. Primary outcome was the clinical diagnosis of sepsis in the hospital. Results: Between March 1, 2018 and March 31, 2019, we included in our study 1548 participants of whom 82 (5.3%) received a final hospital diagnosis of sepsis. The qSOFA presented an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) to detect sepsis in patients with suspicion and without suspicion of infection of 0.757 (95% CI: 0.65-0.81), compared to LqSOFA with an AUROC to detect sepsis of 0.784 (95% CI: 0.72-0.84). In the group of patients with suspected infection, the LqSOFA for a 2-point cut-off presented an AUROC of 0.773 (95% CI: 0.69-0.85), with an excellent sensitivity of 92.6% (95% CI: 83.9-96.8) and an odds ratio of 8.23 (95% CI: 3.09-21.92). Conclusions: An appropriate strategy for reducing the morbidity and mortality from sepsis must necessarily include the prompt identification of this time-dependent pathology by using all the tools at our disposal. The qSOFA and LqSOFA can be used in the prehospital environment and help the diagnosis of suspected sepsis in patients with medical pathology, highlighting the predictive capacity of LqSOFA in the group of patients with suspected infection.
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.