Prognostic Accuracy of qSOFA and SIRS for Mortality in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Prospective Studies
Objective. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the prognostic performance of quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score in comparison to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in predicting in-hospital mortality in the emergency department (ED) patients. Methods. Eligible stud...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | Emergency Medicine International |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/1802707 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832562527577309184 |
|---|---|
| author | Hailin Ruan Dianshan Ke Dalin Liao |
| author_facet | Hailin Ruan Dianshan Ke Dalin Liao |
| author_sort | Hailin Ruan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Objective. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the prognostic performance of quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score in comparison to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in predicting in-hospital mortality in the emergency department (ED) patients. Methods. Eligible studies comparing the performance of qSOFA and SIRS in predicting in-hospital death of ED patients were identified from searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. Raw data were collected, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated for qSOFA and SIRS. The summary receiver operating curve was also plotted to calculate the area under the curve. Results. A total of 16 prospective studies with 35,756 patients and 2,285 deaths were included. The pooled sensitivity was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.32–0.54) and 0.8 (95% CI: 0.73–0.86) for qSOFA and SIRS, respectively. The pooled specificity was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.84–0.93) and 0.39 (95% CI: 0.3–0.5) for qSOFA and SIRS, respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating curve was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.72–0.8) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.62–0.72) for qSOFA and SIRS, respectively. A significant heterogeneity was observed for both qSOFA and SIRS studies. Conclusion. The present meta-analysis suggested that qSOFA had a higher specificity but a lower sensitivity as compared with SIRS in predicting in-hospital mortality in the ED patients. qSOFA appeared to be a more concise and simple way to recognize patients at high risk for death. However, the use of SIRS in the ED cannot be completely replaced since the sensitivity of qSOFA was relatively lower. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-4a6f2372f9cd4eadba49d1dc2d5b4a7a |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2090-2859 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Emergency Medicine International |
| spelling | doaj-art-4a6f2372f9cd4eadba49d1dc2d5b4a7a2025-02-03T01:22:27ZengWileyEmergency Medicine International2090-28592022-01-01202210.1155/2022/1802707Prognostic Accuracy of qSOFA and SIRS for Mortality in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Prospective StudiesHailin Ruan0Dianshan Ke1Dalin Liao2Department of Emergency MedicineDepartment of OrthopedicsDepartment of EmergencyObjective. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the prognostic performance of quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score in comparison to systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in predicting in-hospital mortality in the emergency department (ED) patients. Methods. Eligible studies comparing the performance of qSOFA and SIRS in predicting in-hospital death of ED patients were identified from searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. Raw data were collected, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated for qSOFA and SIRS. The summary receiver operating curve was also plotted to calculate the area under the curve. Results. A total of 16 prospective studies with 35,756 patients and 2,285 deaths were included. The pooled sensitivity was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.32–0.54) and 0.8 (95% CI: 0.73–0.86) for qSOFA and SIRS, respectively. The pooled specificity was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.84–0.93) and 0.39 (95% CI: 0.3–0.5) for qSOFA and SIRS, respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating curve was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.72–0.8) and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.62–0.72) for qSOFA and SIRS, respectively. A significant heterogeneity was observed for both qSOFA and SIRS studies. Conclusion. The present meta-analysis suggested that qSOFA had a higher specificity but a lower sensitivity as compared with SIRS in predicting in-hospital mortality in the ED patients. qSOFA appeared to be a more concise and simple way to recognize patients at high risk for death. However, the use of SIRS in the ED cannot be completely replaced since the sensitivity of qSOFA was relatively lower.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/1802707 |
| spellingShingle | Hailin Ruan Dianshan Ke Dalin Liao Prognostic Accuracy of qSOFA and SIRS for Mortality in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Prospective Studies Emergency Medicine International |
| title | Prognostic Accuracy of qSOFA and SIRS for Mortality in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Prospective Studies |
| title_full | Prognostic Accuracy of qSOFA and SIRS for Mortality in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Prospective Studies |
| title_fullStr | Prognostic Accuracy of qSOFA and SIRS for Mortality in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Prospective Studies |
| title_full_unstemmed | Prognostic Accuracy of qSOFA and SIRS for Mortality in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Prospective Studies |
| title_short | Prognostic Accuracy of qSOFA and SIRS for Mortality in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Prospective Studies |
| title_sort | prognostic accuracy of qsofa and sirs for mortality in the emergency department a meta analysis and systematic review of prospective studies |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/1802707 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hailinruan prognosticaccuracyofqsofaandsirsformortalityintheemergencydepartmentametaanalysisandsystematicreviewofprospectivestudies AT dianshanke prognosticaccuracyofqsofaandsirsformortalityintheemergencydepartmentametaanalysisandsystematicreviewofprospectivestudies AT dalinliao prognosticaccuracyofqsofaandsirsformortalityintheemergencydepartmentametaanalysisandsystematicreviewofprospectivestudies |