ReviewVeterinary evidence
The quick sequential organ failure assessment score as a predictor of mortality in septic dogs.
Review in Veterinary evidence. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PICO question: In adult dogs with suspected or confirmed sepsis, does the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score accurately predict mortality? Clinical bottom line: Category of research: Prognosis. Number and type of study designs reviewed: Four papers were critically reviewed. All four were retrospective cohort studies. Strength of evidence: Weak. Outcomes reported: The use of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score to predict mortality of septic dogs in a veterinary hospital setting produced mixed results. When applied generally to dogs admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in the first study, there was no significant difference in score between survivors and non-survivors, and this pattern was consistent among the septic dogs in that study. The qSOFA was also not found to be predictive of mortality in dogs with severe sepsis and septic shock in the second study. However, when applied to female dogs referred to a tertiary hospital for pyometra in the third study and dogs with a clinical diagnosis of sepsis requiring surgical source control in the fourth, odds of mortality were higher for scores more than or equal to 2, and discrimination between survivors and non-survivors was good. Conclusion: The available literature does not definitively validate the use of qSOFA as a standalone prognostic tool for dogs with sepsis. It may serve as a supplementary tool for early identification of at-risk patients; however, it should not replace clinician judgment in decision-making. As is the case when applied to humans in the literature, the score may be used in conjunction with other observations to aid in clinical decision-making, but a negative result should not delay investigations or treatments. A higher score or an increase in score may be used to identify patients at risk of deterioration to trigger further investigations and consideration of possible infection. The qSOFA should only be used as a complementary tool to assist with management and monitoring, not to determine prognosis for individual patients.
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.