Author
Listed:
- Girum Tesfaye Kiya
- Gemeda Abebe
- Zeleke Mekonnen
- Edosa Tadasa
- Gedion Milkias
- Elsah Tegene Asefa
Abstract
Background: Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) is a common complication in sepsis patients which exacerbates patient outcomes. The prevalence and outcomes of DIC in sepsis is wide-ranging and highly depends on the severity of the disease and diagnostic approaches utilized. Varied diagnostic criteria of DIC have been developed and their performance in diagnosis and prognosis is not consistent. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the score positivity rate and performance of different DIC scoring systems in predicting mortality in sepsis patients. Methods: Four databases, including Medline (through PubMed), Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for studies that determined DIC in sepsis patients using the three scoring systems namely: the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis DIC (ISTH-DIC) criteria, the Japanese association for acute medicine DIC (JAAM-DIC) criteria, and the sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) criteria. A random-effect meta-analysis was performed with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analysis was conducted in view of geographic region and sepsis stages. the protocol was submitted to the Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with an identifier (CRD42023409614). Results: Twenty-one studies, published between 2009 and 2024, comprising 9319 sepsis patients were included. The pooled proportion of cases diagnosed as positive using ISTH-DIC criteria, JAAM-DIC criteria, and SIC were 28% (95% CI: 24–34%), 55% (95% CI:42–70%), and 57% (95% CI: 52–78%), respectively. The pooled mortality rates were 44% (95% CI:33–53%), 37% (95% CI: 29–46%), and 35% (95% CI: 29–41%), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ISTH-DIC to predict mortality were 0.43 (95% CI: 0.34–0.52), and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.74–0.87), respectively, while for JAAM-DIC it was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.57–0.85) and 0.46 (95% CI: 0.28–0.65), respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for SIC were 0.71 (95% CI: 0.57–0.82) and 0.49 (95% CI: 0.31–0.66), respectively. Conclusion: The SIC and JAAM-DIC scores exhibited higher sensitivity to identify patients with coagulopathy and predict patient outcomes, and thus are valuable to identify patients for possible treatment at an early stage. The ISTH-DIC score perhaps identified patients at later stages and demonstrated better specificity to predict disease outcomes. Thus, early identification of patients using the SIC and JAAM-DIC scores and later confirmation using the ISTH-DIC score would be beneficial approach for improved management of patients with sepsis.
Suggested Citation
Girum Tesfaye Kiya & Gemeda Abebe & Zeleke Mekonnen & Edosa Tadasa & Gedion Milkias & Elsah Tegene Asefa, 2025.
"A comparison of disseminated intravascular coagulation scoring systems and their performance to predict mortality in sepsis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(1), pages 1-17, January.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0315797
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315797
Download full text from publisher
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:pone00:0315797. 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.