Prognostic accuracy of SOFA, MEWS, and SIRS criteria in predicting the mortality rate of patients with sepsis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, some studies classified patients with sepsis and predicted their mortality by using some evaluation scales. Several studies reported significant differences in the predictive values of several tools, and the non-uniformity of the cut-off value.

OBJECTIVE

To determine and compare the prognostic accuracy of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), and Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) criteria in predicting the mortality of patients with sepsis.

METHODS

This study comprised of systematic literature review and meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from their establishment to July 31, 2022. The research articles published in the index journals provide sufficient data (true positive, false positive, true negative, and false negative results) for patients with sepsis. The combined sensitivity and specificity of the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the bivariate random effect model (BRM). The hierarchical overall subject working characteristics (HSROC) curve was drawn to evaluate the accuracy of the overall prognosis.

RESULTS

Data of 55 088 patients from 32 studies were included in this meta-analysis. SOFA had an intermediate sensitivity of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.67-0.78) and a specificity of 0.70 (0.63-0.76). SIRS criteria had the highest sensitivity of 0.75 (0.66-0.82) and the lowest specificity of 0.40 (0.29-0.52). MEWS had the lowest sensitivity of 0.49 (0.40-0.59) and the highest specificity of 0.82 (0.78-0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Among SOFA, MEWS, and SIRS criteria, SOFA showed moderate sensitivity and specificity for predicting mortality in patients with sepsis, the highest sensitivity of SIRS and the strongest specificity of MEWS for predicting mortality in patients with sepsis. The future research direction is to combine the relevant indicators of MEWS and SIRS to develop a measurement tool with high reliability and validity.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The review provides useful insights into the prognostic accuracy of different assessment tools in predicting mortality in sepsis patients, which will help clinicians choose the most appropriate tool for early identification and treatment of sepsis. The findings may also contribute to the development of more accurate and reliable prognostic models for sepsis.

Systems for recognition and response to deteriorating emergency department patients: a scoping review

Background

Assessing and managing the risk of clinical deterioration is a cornerstone of emergency care, commencing at triage and continuing throughout the emergency department (ED) care. The aim of this scoping review was to assess the extent, range and nature of published research related to formal systems for recognising and responding to clinical deterioration in emergency department (ED) patients.

Materials and methods

We conducted a scoping review according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. MEDLINE complete, CINAHL and Embase were searched on 07 April 2021 from their dates of inception. Human studies evaluating formal systems for recognising and responding to clinical deterioration occurring after triage that were published in English were included. Formal systems for recognising and responding to clinical deterioration were defined as: i) predefined patient assessment criteria for clinical deterioration (single trigger or aggregate score), and, or ii) a predefined, expected response should a patient fulfil the criteria for clinical deterioration. Studies of short stay units and observation wards; deterioration during the triage process; system or score development or validation; and systems requiring pathology test results were excluded. The following characteristics of each study were extracted: author(s), year, design, country, aims, population, system tested, outcomes examined, and major findings.

Results

After removal of duplicates, there were 2696 publications. Of these 33 studies representing 109,066 patients were included: all were observational studies. Twenty-two aggregate scoring systems were evaluated in 29 studies and three single trigger systems were evaluated in four studies. There were three major findings: i) few studies reported the use of systems for recognising and responding to clinical deterioration to improve care of patients whilst in the ED; ii) the systems for recognising clinical deterioration in ED patients were highly variable and iii) few studies reported on the ED response to patients identified as deteriorating.

Conclusion

There is a need to re-focus the research related to use of systems for recognition and response to deteriorating patients from predicting various post-ED events to their real-time use to improve patient safety during ED care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13049-021-00882-6.