ArticlePeerJ2025
Predictive performance of clinical scores and survival outcomes in critically ill patients with sepsis: a prospective longitudinal study at a tertiary medical centre in Ethiopia.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled 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
- Clinical significance of controlling nutritional status score in predicting ICU admission, prolonged hospitalization, and in-hospital mortality in emergency sepsis: a single-center retrospective study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical scores such as quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA), early warning score (EWS), and universal vital assessment (UVA) are commonly used as screening and prognostic tools in sepsis. However, consistent findings across different regions and hospital settings remain limited. This study aims to evaluate the performance of these clinical scores and identify predictors of survival in septic adults admitted to the ICU. Methods: A prospective longitudinal study was conducted from October 10, 2023, to October 9, 2024, involving adults admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Clinical scores were calculated on the first, third, and fifth days of admission. Their performance in detecting sepsis, identifying culture-positive cases, and predicting mortality was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate survival probabilities, and a Cox proportional hazards model was applied to identify predictors of survival in sepsis patients. Results: Of the ICU-admitted patients, 148 (51.9%) were septic, and 54 (36.5%) of them died in the ICU. The modified early warning score (MEWS) showed good performance in identifying sepsis (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.61-0.73]) and culture-positive cases (AUC = 0.65; 95% CI [0.50-0.80]) on the day of admission. MEWS also performed better in predicting mortality on day five (AUC = 0.75; 95% CI [0.57-0.93]). Patients with sepsis had significantly lower survival probabilities than those without sepsis (log-rank test, Conclusion: The MEWS score outperformed other clinical scores in identifying sepsis, detecting culture-positive cases, and predicting mortality. Sepsis was associated with higher mortality, which decreased with increasing GCS scores. MEWS may support early identification of sepsis and mortality risk, and its use could help improve ICU survival through timely intervention.
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.