ArticleEmergency medicine international2026
Comparative Prognostic Performance of qSOFA and SOFA in Emergency Department Patients With Established Septic Shock.
Article in Emergency medicine international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Comparative Prognostic Performance of qSOFA and SOFA in Emergency Department Patients With Established Septic Shock.Emergency medicine international · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) enables rapid bedside screening, whereas sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) offers a more comprehensive evaluation of organ dysfunction; their comparative prognostic value in established septic shock remains unclear. Objective: To compare the prognostic performance of qSOFA and SOFA for 28-day mortality prediction in patients with established septic shock according to Sepsis-3 criteria presenting to the emergency department and to evaluate the applicability of a simplified bedside scoring tool (qSOFA) within this specific high-risk population. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 486 patients with complete qSOFA and SOFA data from January 2021 to December 2024. Receiver operating characteristic curves, DeLong tests, multivariable logistic regression, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and calibration testing were performed. Multiple imputation of missing SOFA components was applied in a sensitivity analysis comprising 527 clinically eligible patients, and exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted according to infection source. Results: The 28-day mortality rate was 38.5%. SOFA provided better mortality discrimination than qSOFA (AUC 0.847, 95% CI 0.812-0.882 vs. 0.724, 95% CI 0.679-0.769; Conclusion: In patients with established septic shock according to Sepsis-3 criteria, SOFA outperformed qSOFA in mortality risk stratification. qSOFA may be useful for rapid bedside screening but should not replace the comprehensive prognostic assessment provided by SOFA.
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.