Affiliation:
1. Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine National University of Singapore Singapore Singapore
2. School of Health & Psychological Sciences City University of London London UK
Abstract
AbstractAimThe early warning scores (EWS), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria have been proposed as sepsis screening tools. This review aims to summarise and compare the performance of EWS with the qSOFA and SIRS criteria for predicting sepsis diagnosis and in‐hospital mortality in patients with sepsis.DesignA systematic review with meta‐analysis.Review MethodsSeven databases were searched from January 1, 2016 until March 10, 2022. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odd ratios were pooled by using the bivariate random effects model. Overall performance was summarised by using the hierarchical summary receiver–operating characteristics curve. This paper adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA‐DTA) guidelines.ResultsTen studies involving 52,474 subjects were included in the review. For predicting sepsis diagnosis, the pooled sensitivity of EWS (65%, 95% CI: 55, 75) was similar to SIRS ≥2 (70%, 95% CI: 49, 85) and higher than qSOFA ≥2 (37%, 95% CI: 20, 59). The pooled specificity of EWS (77%, 95% CI: 64, 86) was higher than SIRS ≥2 (62%, 95% CI: 41, 80) but lower than qSOFA ≥2 (94%, 95% CI: 86, 98). Results were similar for the secondary outcome of in‐hospital mortality.ConclusionsAlthough no one scoring system had both high sensitivity and specificity, the EWS had at least equivalent values in most measures of diagnostic accuracy compared with SIRS or qSOFA.Implications for the professionHealthcare systems in which EWS is already in place should consider whether there is any clinical benefit in adopting qSOFA or SIRS.No patient or public contributionThis systematic review did not directly involve patient or public contribution to the manuscript.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献