Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39926631›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

A Screening Tool to Predict Sepsis in Patients With Suspected Infection in the Emergency Department.

Yasufumi Oi, Fumihiro Ogawa, Hiroshi Honzawa, Takeru Abe, Shouhei Imaki, Ichiro Takeuchi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yasufumi OiEmergency Care Department, Yokohama City University Hospital, Yokohama, JPN.
Fumihiro OgawaEmergency Care Department, Yokohama City University Hospital, Yokohama, JPN.
Hiroshi HonzawaEmergency Care Department, Yokohama City University Hospital, Yokohama, JPN.
Takeru AbeCenter for Integrated Science and Humanities, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, JPN.
Shouhei ImakiEmergency and Critical Care Medical Center, Yokohama Municipal Citizen's Hospital, Yokohama, JPN.
Ichiro TakeuchiAdvanced Critical Care and Emergency Center, Yokohama City University Hospital, Yokohama, JPN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective Sepsis is a life-threatening condition associated with high morbidity and mortality, and hence early recognition and treatment are crucial. The 2016 Sepsis-3 guidelines introduced the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), but its low sensitivity limits early detection. The 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines (SSCG) discourage relying solely on qSOFA and recommend additional tools such as the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score, the National Early Warning Score (NEWS), and the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) along with lactate measurement. This study assessed whether combining qSOFA with quantitative capillary refill time (Q-CRT) or lactate levels enhances early sepsis diagnosis in emergency departments. Methods This retrospective, multi-facility observational study was conducted at two hospitals in Yokohama, Japan. Patients with suspected infections who underwent Q-CRT measurement were included. Q-CRT was measured using a pulse oximeter-based device that records the time taken for blood flow to return to 90% after compression. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves determined the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Results Of the 357 patients who underwent Q-CRT measurement, 75 (21%) were suspected of having an infection, with 48 (64%) classified as having sepsis with organ dysfunction. Patients in the sepsis group had higher age, heart rate, lactate level, creatinine level, NEWS, MEWS, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores compared to those without organ dysfunction. Among individual tools, the qSOFA, NEWS, and MEWS scores showed high AUCs (>0.8), while Q-CRT and lactate levels demonstrated moderate predictive accuracy with AUCs exceeding 0.7. The SIRS score had the lowest predictive ability, with an AUC of approximately 0.6. Combining qSOFA with Q-CRT or lactate levels significantly improved sensitivity and specificity. The qSOFA+Q-CRT combination resulted in an AUC of 0.821, sensitivity of 83.3%, and specificity of 81.4%, while the qSOFA+lactate combination yielded an AUC of 0.844, sensitivity of 87.5%, and specificity of 81.4%. These combinations exceeded 80% in both sensitivity and specificity, unlike the SIRS-based combinations, which showed limited improvement and specificity below 40%. While the qSOFA score alone demonstrated limited sensitivity, combining it with Q-CRT or lactate levels enhanced its predictive performance for early sepsis detection. This approach improved sensitivity without compromising specificity. The increase in sensitivity and specificity is likely due to Q-CRT and lactate identifying sepsis cases not detected by qSOFA, thereby making the combined approach more reliable for clinical use. Lactate levels are well-established markers associated with sepsis severity, and Q-CRT offers a non-invasive means of assessing peripheral perfusion. Conclusions Combining qSOFA with Q-CRT or lactate levels significantly improves early sepsis detection by enhancing both sensitivity and specificity. These combinations offer superior diagnostic accuracy compared to standalone tools, supporting their potential integration into clinical protocols for better patient outcomes. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings across diverse clinical settings.

Indexed as

lactate levelmodified early warning scorenational early warning scorequick sequential organ failure assessmentsepsissystemic inflammatory response syndrome score

Identifiers

PMID39926631
PMCPMC11806647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.