ArticleClinical and experimental emergency medicine2026
Comparison of four noninvasive tools for predicting sepsis and septic shock mortality: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Clinical and experimental emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSepsis, a life-threatening organ dysfunction, is a major global health concern. Early detection remains challenging due to nonspecific symptoms. Noninvasive tools such as the shock index, diastolic shock index, capillary refill time (CRT), and mottling score (MS) could help clinicians assess hemodynamic status and predict mortality, but a comprehensive comparison of their prognostic value is lacking. This study compares the performance of those four tools in predicting mortality in septic patients at 24 hours, 7 days, and 28 days.
methodsA single-center, prospective observational study was conducted from January to September 2024. Adult patients (≥18 years) with suspected infection and a National Early Warning Score-2 of ≥5 were enrolled. Demographic data, vital signs, and CRT and MS results were collected at presentation, and mortality outcomes were recorded at 24 hours, 7 days, and 28 days.
resultsIn total, 135 patients were included (median age, 85 years [interquartile range, 79-90 years]; 44.4% female). The mortality rates were 15.6% at 24 hours, 25.2% at 7 days, and 35.6% at 28 days. CRT showed the highest predictive value for 24-hour mortality (area under the curve [AUC], 0.829; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.755-0.889), and MS had the best performance at 7 days (AUC, 0.732; 95% CI, 0.646-0.806) and at 28 days (AUC, 0.749; 95% CI, 0.662-0.823). No significant differences emerged in pairwise comparisons.
conclusionAlthough no one tool significantly outperformed the others, all four tools may provide useful, noninvasive mortality prediction in sepsis. CRT may be most effective for early risk stratification and MS correlates with mid-term outcomes, supporting their integration into clinical assessments.
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.