↓ Skip to main content

Head-to-head comparison of qSOFA and SIRS criteria in predicting the mortality of infected patients in the emergency department: a meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Head-to-head comparison of qSOFA and SIRS criteria in predicting the mortality of infected patients in the emergency department: a meta-analysis
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13049-018-0527-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jianjun Jiang, Jin Yang, Jing Mei, Yongmei Jin, Youjin Lu

Abstract

Recently, the concept of sepsis was redefined by an international task force. This international task force of experts recommended using the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria instead of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to classify patients at high risk for death. However, the added value of these new criteria in the emergency department (ED) remains unclear. Thus, we performed this meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the qSOFA criteria in predicting mortality in ED patients with infections and compared the performance with that of the SIRS criteria. PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar (up to April 2018) were searched for related articles. A 2 × 2 contingency table was constructed according to mortality and qSOFA score (< 2 and ≥ 2) or SIRS score (< 2 and ≥ 2) in ED patients with infections. Two investigators independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model to determine the prognostic value of qSOFA and SIRS in predicting mortality. We used the I2 index to test heterogeneity. The bivariate random-effects regression model was used to pool the individual sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR). The summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was constructed to assess the overall diagnostic accuracy. Eight studies with a total of 52,849 patients were included. A qSOFA score ≥ 2 was associated with a higher risk of mortality in ED patients with infections, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 4.55 (95% CI, 3.38-6.14) using a random-effects model (I2 = 91.1%). A SIRS score ≥ 2 was a prognostic marker of mortality in ED patients with infections, with a pooled RR of 2.75 (95% CI, 1.96-3.86) using a random-effects model (I2 = 89%). When comparing the performance of qSOFA and SIRS in predicting mortality, a qSOFA score ≥ 2 was more specific; however a SIRS score ≥ 2 was more sensitive. The initial qSOFA values were of limited prognostic value in ED patients with infections. A qSOFA score ≥ 2 and SIRS score ≥ 2 are strongly associated with mortality in ED patients with infections. However, it is also clear that qSOFA and SIRS have limitations as risk stratification tools for ED patients with infections.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 19 21%
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 11 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Engineering 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 15 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2019.
All research outputs
#3,519,938
of 15,289,603 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#304
of 938 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,122
of 274,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,289,603 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 938 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,984 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them