IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0266755.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of qSOFA, SIRS and NEWS in predicting the accuracy of mortality in patients with suspected sepsis: A meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Can Wang
  • Rufu Xu
  • Yuerong Zeng
  • Yu Zhao
  • Xuelian Hu

Abstract

Objective: To identify and compare prognostic accuracy of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria, and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) to predict mortality in patients with suspected sepsis. Methods: This meta-analysis followed accordance with the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases from establishment of the database to November 29, 2021. The pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% CIs were calculated using a bivariate random-effects model (BRM). Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves were generated to assess the overall prognostic accuracy. Results: Data of 62338 patients from 26 studies were included in this meta-analysis. qSOFA had the highest specificity and the lowest sensitivity with a specificity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.76–0.86) and a sensitivity of 0.46 (95% CI: 0.39–0.53). SIRS had the highest sensitivity and the lowest specificity with a sensitivity of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78–0.85) and a specificity 0.24 (95% CI: 0.19–0.29). NEWS had both an intermediate sensitivity and specificity with a sensitivity of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.63–0.81) and a specificity 0.52 (95% CI: 0.39–0.65). qSOFA showed higher overall prognostic accuracy than SIRS and NEWS by comparing HSROC curves. Conclusions: Among qSOFA, SIRS and NEWS, qSOFA showed higher overall prognostic accuracy than SIRS and NEWS. However, no scoring system has both high sensitivity and specificity for predicting the accuracy of mortality in patients with suspected sepsis.

Suggested Citation

  • Can Wang & Rufu Xu & Yuerong Zeng & Yu Zhao & Xuelian Hu, 2022. "A comparison of qSOFA, SIRS and NEWS in predicting the accuracy of mortality in patients with suspected sepsis: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0266755
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0266755
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266755
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0266755&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0266755?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0266755. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.