↓ Skip to main content

Performance of the quick Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment score as a prognostic tool in infected patients outside the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
34 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
130 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
278 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
Performance of the quick Sequential (sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment score as a prognostic tool in infected patients outside the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-1952-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jae-Uk Song, Cheol Kyung Sin, Hye Kyeong Park, Sung Ryul Shim, Jonghoo Lee

Abstract

The usefulness of the quick Sequential (Sepsis-related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in providing bedside criteria for early prediction of poor outcomes in patients with suspected infection remains controversial. We investigated the prognostic performance of a positive qSOFA score outside the intensive care unit (ICU) compared with positive systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data were pooled on the basis of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic OR. Overall test performance was summarized using a hierarchical summary ROC and the AUC. Meta-regression analysis was used to identify potential sources of bias. We identified 23 studies with a total of 146,551 patients. When predicting in-hospital mortality in our meta-analysis, we identified pooled sensitivities of 0.51 for a positive qSOFA score and 0.86 for positive SIRS criteria, as well as pooled specificities of 0.83 for a positive qSOFA score and 0.29 for positive SIRS criteria. Discrimination for in-hospital mortality had similar AUCs between the two tools (0.74 vs. 0.71; P = 0.816). Using meta-regression analysis, an overall mortality rate ≥ 10% and timing of qSOFA score measurement could be significant sources of heterogeneity. For predicting acute organ dysfunction, although the AUC for a positive qSOFA score was higher than that for positive SIRS criteria (0.87 vs. 0.76; P < 0.001), the pooled sensitivity of positive qSOFA score was very low (0.47). In addition, a positive qSOFA score tended to be inferior to positive SIRS criteria in predicting ICU admission (0.63 vs. 0.78; P = 0.121). A positive qSOFA score had high specificity outside the ICU in early detection of in-hospital mortality, acute organ dysfunction, and ICU admission, but low sensitivity may have limitations as a predictive tool for adverse outcomes. Because between-study heterogeneity was highly represented among the studies, our results should be interpreted with caution.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 278 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 278 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 36 13%
Student > Master 30 11%
Researcher 28 10%
Student > Bachelor 22 8%
Student > Postgraduate 21 8%
Other 78 28%
Unknown 63 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 139 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 7%
Unspecified 17 6%
Engineering 7 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 20 7%
Unknown 71 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 24 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,569,080
of 21,742,867 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,440
of 5,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,865
of 402,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,742,867 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 402,070 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.