↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of qSOFA and SIRS for predicting adverse outcomes of patients with suspicion of sepsis outside the intensive care unit

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
96 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
179 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
368 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
Comparison of qSOFA and SIRS for predicting adverse outcomes of patients with suspicion of sepsis outside the intensive care unit
Published in
Critical Care, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1658-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eli J. Finkelsztein, Daniel S. Jones, Kevin C. Ma, Maria A. Pabón, Tatiana Delgado, Kiichi Nakahira, John E. Arbo, David A. Berlin, Edward J. Schenck, Augustine M. K. Choi, Ilias I. Siempos

Abstract

The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) Task Force recently introduced a new clinical score termed quick Sequential (Sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) for identification of patients at risk of sepsis outside the intensive care unit (ICU). We attempted to compare the discriminatory capacity of the qSOFA versus the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) score for predicting mortality, ICU-free days, and organ dysfunction-free days in patients with suspicion of infection outside the ICU. The Weill Cornell Medicine Registry and Biobank of Critically Ill Patients is an ongoing cohort of critically ill patients, for whom biological samples and clinical information (including vital signs before and during ICU hospitalization) are prospectively collected. Using such information, qSOFA and SIRS scores outside the ICU (specifically, within 8 hours before ICU admission) were calculated. This study population was therefore comprised of patients in the emergency department or the hospital wards who had suspected infection, were subsequently admitted to the medical ICU and were included in the Registry and Biobank. One hundred fifty-two patients (67% from the emergency department) were included in this study. Sixty-seven percent had positive cultures and 19% died in the hospital. Discrimination of in-hospital mortality using qSOFA [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), 0.74; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.66-0.81] was significantly greater compared with SIRS criteria (AUC, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.51-0.67; p = 0.03). The qSOFA performed better than SIRS regarding discrimination for ICU-free days (p = 0.04), but not for ventilator-free days (p = 0.19), any organ dysfunction-free days (p = 0.13), or renal dysfunction-free days (p = 0.17). In patients with suspected infection who eventually required admission to the ICU, qSOFA calculated before their ICU admission had greater accuracy than SIRS for predicting mortality and ICU-free days. However, it may be less clear whether qSOFA is also better than SIRS criteria for predicting ventilator free-days and organ dysfunction-free days. These findings may help clinicians gain further insight into the usefulness of qSOFA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 96 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 368 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 367 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 15%
Student > Postgraduate 40 11%
Student > Bachelor 37 10%
Other 34 9%
Researcher 31 8%
Other 93 25%
Unknown 77 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 211 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 6 2%
Other 28 8%
Unknown 83 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 14 January 2018.
All research outputs
#699,508
of 25,501,527 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#484
of 6,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,336
of 323,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#9
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,501,527 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 323,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.