Prognostic Accuracy of qSOFA and SIRS for Mortality in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Prospective Studies

qSOFA 和 SIRS 对急诊科患者死亡率的预后准确性:前瞻性研究的荟萃分析和系统评价

阅读:2

Abstract

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.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。