SynthesisBMJ open respiratory research2026
Accuracy of prognostic scoring tools for ICU triage and mortality among patients in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open respiratory research, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly warning and severity scores are widely used to support triage and predict clinical deterioration. Their diagnostic performance in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) however remains uncertain due to differences in patient populations and healthcare resources compared with high-income settings.
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of commonly used scoring systems for predicting intensive care unit (ICU) admission and in-hospital mortality among adults presenting to emergency departments in LMICs.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Observational studies assessing the accuracy of early warning or severity scores for ICU admission or in-hospital mortality of patient admitted to the emergency department were included. Data were pooled using a bivariate random-effects model to estimate sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve (AUC). Study quality was appraised using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2).
resultsTwenty-six studies comprising over 45 000 patients from LMICs were analysed. For in-hospital mortality, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) showed sensitivity of 0.61 and specificity of 0.73 (AUC=0.67); National Early Warning Score (NEWS)-family had higher sensitivity (0.80) but lower specificity (0.56, AUC=0.68); Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) provided high specificity (0.83) but lower sensitivity (0.53, AUC=0.68). For ICU admission, NEWS demonstrated balanced performance (sensitivity 0.74, specificity 0.77, AUC=0.76), while Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) achieved the highest overall accuracy (sensitivity 0.79, specificity 0.85, AUC=0.81). Considerable heterogeneity was observed across studies.
conclusionsEarly warning scores show moderate accuracy in predicting ICU admission and in-hospital mortality in LMIC emergency departments. qSOFA and MEWS may be most useful when high specificity is required, while NEWS and REMS provide more balanced performance, with REMS showing the best overall accuracy. No single score was optimal across settings, underscoring the need for local validation and adaptation in resource-limited environments.
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.