The comparison score of SPEEDS, MEDS, SOFA, APACHE II, and SAPS II as predictor of sepsis mortality: A Systematic Review

Nova Maryani, Calcarina Fitriani Retno Wisudarti
{"title":"The comparison score of SPEEDS, MEDS, SOFA, APACHE II, and SAPS II as predictor of sepsis mortality: A Systematic Review","authors":"Nova Maryani, Calcarina Fitriani Retno Wisudarti","doi":"10.59888/ajosh.v2i1.116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We performed the comparison of characteristics and values under the curve, including Sepsis Patient Evaluation Emergency Department Score (SPEEDS), Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II). We searched PubMed, Science direct, ProQuest, and EBSCO for identify full-text English-language papers published between 2012-2022. We discovered that each of the five-scoring lead to mortality forecasts in sepsis patients. MEDS predicted mortality in sepsis patients better than SAPS II after 28 days but the SPEEDS was more accurate than MEDS. The SOFA score predicts mortality better than the APACHE II. APACHE II has lesser validity than SAPS II. The AUC SOFA scores have greater in diagnosing sepsis patients’ mortality than other scores. However, they are overstated, inefficient, and non-cost-effective, making SOFA scoring unfavourable in enhancing healthcare quality.","PeriodicalId":92175,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of research in social sciences and humanities","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of research in social sciences and humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59888/ajosh.v2i1.116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We performed the comparison of characteristics and values under the curve, including Sepsis Patient Evaluation Emergency Department Score (SPEEDS), Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II). We searched PubMed, Science direct, ProQuest, and EBSCO for identify full-text English-language papers published between 2012-2022. We discovered that each of the five-scoring lead to mortality forecasts in sepsis patients. MEDS predicted mortality in sepsis patients better than SAPS II after 28 days but the SPEEDS was more accurate than MEDS. The SOFA score predicts mortality better than the APACHE II. APACHE II has lesser validity than SAPS II. The AUC SOFA scores have greater in diagnosing sepsis patients’ mortality than other scores. However, they are overstated, inefficient, and non-cost-effective, making SOFA scoring unfavourable in enhancing healthcare quality.
speed、MEDS、SOFA、APACHE II和SAPS II作为脓毒症死亡率预测因子的比较评分:一项系统评价
我们对曲线下的特征和值进行了比较,包括败血症患者评估急诊科评分(speed)、急诊科败血症死亡率(MEDS)、顺序器官衰竭评估(SOFA)、急性生理和慢性健康评估II (APACHE II)和简化急性生理评分(SAPS II)。我们检索PubMed、Science direct、ProQuest和EBSCO,以确定2012-2022年间发表的全文英文论文。我们发现5个评分中的每一个都能预测败血症患者的死亡率。MEDS评分对脓毒症患者28天后死亡率的预测优于SAPS II,但MEDS评分比MEDS评分更准确。SOFA评分比APACHE II评分更能预测死亡率。APACHE II的有效性低于SAPS II。AUC SOFA评分对败血症患者死亡率的诊断价值高于其他评分。然而,它们被夸大了,效率低下,而且不具有成本效益,使得SOFA评分在提高医疗保健质量方面不利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信