Cited by 274Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentInflammation biomarkers and pathwaysAcute Kidney Injury Research

A Comparison of the Quick-SOFA and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome Criteria for the Diagnosis of Sepsis and Prediction of Mortality

Serafim, Rodrigo, Gomes, José Andrade, Salluh, Jorge, Póvoa, Pedro·2018·Chest

Abstract

Background Several studies were published to validate the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), namely in comparison with the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of comparing the qSOFA and SIRS in patients outside the ICU.Methods We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Web of Science database from February 23, 2016 until June 30, 2017 to identify full-text English-language studies published after the Sepsis-3 publication comparing the qSOFA and SIRS and their sensitivity or specificity in diagnosing sepsis, as well as hospital and ICU length of stay and hospital mortality. Data extraction from the selected studies followed the recommendations of the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology group and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.Results From 4,022 citations, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooling all the studies, a total of 229,480 patients were evaluated. The meta-analysis of sensitivity for the diagnosis of sepsis comparing the qSOFA and SIRS was in favor of SIRS (risk ratio [RR], 1.32; 95% CI, 0.40-2.24; P < .0001; I 2 = 100%). One study described the specificity for the diagnosis of infection comparing SIRS (84.4%; 95% CI, 76.2-90.6) with the qSOFA (97.3%; 95% CI < 92.1-99.4); the qSOFA demonstrated better specificity. The meta-analysis of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of six studies comparing the qSOFA and SIRS favored the qSOFA (RR, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.05; P = .002; I 2 = 48%) as a predictor of inhospital mortality.Conclusions The SIRS was significantly superior to the qSOFA for sepsis diagnosis, and the qSOFA was slightly better than the SIRS in predicting hospital mortality. The association of both criteria could provide a better model to initiate or escalate therapy in patients with sepsis.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42017067645.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chest.2017.12.015

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Serafim, R., Gomes, J. A., Salluh, J., & Póvoa, P.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (BR)
  • Hospital da Luz (PT)
  • Hospital de Egas Moniz (PT)
Corresponding author
Póvoa, Pedro
Venue
Chest
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
153
Issue
3
Pages
646-655
ISSN
0012-3692 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2783656375
Cited by
274
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 18 · 2013: 1
FWCI
3.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • CHEST Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Inflammation biomarkers and pathways
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
Keywords
sepsis, qSOFA, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis diagnosis, mortality prediction, sensitivity and specificity, Sepsis-3, length of hospital stay, diagnostic accuracy, sepsis severity scoring, non-ICU patients
MeSH terms
Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Hospital Mortality, Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome, Sepsis, Organ Dysfunction Scores

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review