Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 26 (1), 56

Head-to-head Comparison of qSOFA and SIRS Criteria in Predicting the Mortality of Infected Patients in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis

Affiliations
Review

Head-to-head Comparison of qSOFA and SIRS Criteria in Predicting the Mortality of Infected Patients in the Emergency Department: A Meta-Analysis

Jianjun Jiang et al. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med.

Abstract

Background: Recently, the concept of sepsis was redefined by an international task force. This international task force of experts recommended using the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) criteria instead of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria to classify patients at high risk for death. However, the added value of these new criteria in the emergency department (ED) remains unclear. Thus, we performed this meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the qSOFA criteria in predicting mortality in ED patients with infections and compared the performance with that of the SIRS criteria.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar (up to April 2018) were searched for related articles. A 2 × 2 contingency table was constructed according to mortality and qSOFA score (< 2 and ≥ 2) or SIRS score (< 2 and ≥ 2) in ED patients with infections. Two investigators independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model to determine the prognostic value of qSOFA and SIRS in predicting mortality. We used the I2 index to test heterogeneity. The bivariate random-effects regression model was used to pool the individual sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), and negative likelihood ratio (NLR). The summary receiver operating characteristic curve (SROC) was constructed to assess the overall diagnostic accuracy.

Results: Eight studies with a total of 52,849 patients were included. A qSOFA score ≥ 2 was associated with a higher risk of mortality in ED patients with infections, with a pooled risk ratio (RR) of 4.55 (95% CI, 3.38-6.14) using a random-effects model (I2 = 91.1%). A SIRS score ≥ 2 was a prognostic marker of mortality in ED patients with infections, with a pooled RR of 2.75 (95% CI, 1.96-3.86) using a random-effects model (I2 = 89%). When comparing the performance of qSOFA and SIRS in predicting mortality, a qSOFA score ≥ 2 was more specific; however a SIRS score ≥ 2 was more sensitive. The initial qSOFA values were of limited prognostic value in ED patients with infections.

Conclusions: A qSOFA score ≥ 2 and SIRS score ≥ 2 are strongly associated with mortality in ED patients with infections. However, it is also clear that qSOFA and SIRS have limitations as risk stratification tools for ED patients with infections.

Keywords: Emergency department; Infection; Mortality; Prognosis; SIRS; qSOFA.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of the study selection process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Deek’s funnel plot of publication bias (a). For qSOFA; b. For SIRS). Potential publication bias exists (P < 0.05)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot of qSOFA scores ≥2 for predicting mortality in ED patients with infections
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot of the sensitivity and specificity of qSOFA scores ≥2 for predicting mortality in ED patients with infections
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest plot of SIRS scores ≥2 for predicting mortality in ED patients with infections
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Forest plot of the sensitivity and specificity of SIRS scores ≥2 on predicting mortality in ED patients with infections
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Paired specificity and sensitivity of qSOFA scores ≥2 versus SIRS scores ≥2 in predicting mortality in ED patients with infections

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 5 articles

References

    1. Vincent JL, Marshall JC, Namendyssilva SA, François B, Martinloeches I, Lipman J, Reinhart K, Antonelli M, Pickkers P, Njimi H. Assessment of the worldwide burden of critical illness: the intensive care over nations (ICON) audit. Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2014;2(5):380–386. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(14)70061-X. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fleischmann C, Scherag A, Adhikari NK, Hartog CS, Tsaganos T, Schlattmann P, Angus DC, Reinhart K. Assessment of global incidence and mortality of hospital-treated Sepsis. Current estimates and limitations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(3):259–272. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201504-0781OC. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Peake SL, Delaney A, Bailey M, Bellomo R, Cameron PA, Cooper DJ, Higgins AM, Holdgate A, Howe BD, Webb SA. Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(16):1496–1506. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1404380. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Investigators TP. A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(18):1683–1693. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1401602. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Priebe HJ. Early, goal-directed resuscitation for septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(6):1301–1311. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback