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

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Nursing in Critical Care Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-21 DOI:10.1111/nicc.13016
Lin Lan, Meichi Zhou, Xiaoli Chen, Min Dai, Ling Wang, Hong Li
{"title":"Prognostic accuracy of SOFA, MEWS, and SIRS criteria in predicting the mortality rate of patients with sepsis: A meta-analysis.","authors":"Lin Lan, Meichi Zhou, Xiaoli Chen, Min Dai, Ling Wang, Hong Li","doi":"10.1111/nicc.13016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Relevance to clinical practice: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":51264,"journal":{"name":"Nursing in Critical Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nursing in Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.13016","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Aim: 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.

SOFA、MEWS 和 SIRS 标准在预测败血症患者死亡率方面的预后准确性:荟萃分析
背景:近年来,一些研究通过使用一些评估量表对败血症患者进行分类并预测其死亡率。一些研究报告称,几种工具的预测值存在明显差异,且临界值不统一:确定并比较序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分、改良早期预警评分(MEWS)和全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)标准在预测脓毒症患者死亡率方面的预后准确性:本研究根据《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》进行了系统文献综述和荟萃分析。我们检索了 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science 和 Cochrane Library 数据库从建立到 2022 年 7 月 31 日的内容。索引期刊上发表的研究文章为败血症患者提供了足够的数据(真阳性、假阳性、真阴性和假阴性结果)。使用双变量随机效应模型(BRM)计算了95%置信区间(CI)的综合敏感性和特异性。绘制了分层总体受试者工作特征(HSROC)曲线,以评估总体预后的准确性:本次荟萃分析共纳入了 32 项研究的 55 088 名患者的数据。SOFA的灵敏度为0.73(95% CI:0.67-0.78),特异性为0.70(0.63-0.76)。SIRS 标准的灵敏度最高,为 0.75(0.66-0.82),特异性最低,为 0.40(0.29-0.52)。MEWS 的灵敏度最低,为 0.49(0.40-0.59),特异性最高,为 0.82(0.78-0.86):结论:在SOFA、MEWS和SIRS标准中,SOFA预测脓毒症患者死亡率的灵敏度和特异性适中,SIRS预测脓毒症患者死亡率的灵敏度最高,MEWS预测脓毒症患者死亡率的特异性最强。未来的研究方向是将 MEWS 和 SIRS 的相关指标结合起来,开发出一种具有高度可靠性和有效性的测量工具:该综述为不同评估工具预测脓毒症患者死亡率的预后准确性提供了有用的见解,有助于临床医生选择最合适的工具来早期识别和治疗脓毒症。研究结果还有助于开发更准确、更可靠的败血症预后模型。
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
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
109
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Nursing in Critical Care is an international peer-reviewed journal covering any aspect of critical care nursing practice, research, education or management. Critical care nursing is defined as the whole spectrum of skills, knowledge and attitudes utilised by practitioners in any setting where adults or children, and their families, are experiencing acute and critical illness. Such settings encompass general and specialist hospitals, and the community. Nursing in Critical Care covers the diverse specialities of critical care nursing including surgery, medicine, cardiac, renal, neurosciences, haematology, obstetrics, accident and emergency, neonatal nursing and paediatrics. Papers published in the journal normally fall into one of the following categories: -research reports -literature reviews -developments in practice, education or management -reflections on practice
×
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