Prognostic Accuracy of the Phoenix Sepsis Criteria for Mortality in Children With Suspected Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2026-10-01 Epub Date: 2026-08-05 DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000007312
Chieh-Ching Yen, Kuang-Yu Niu, Shang-Jun ZhangJian
{"title":"Prognostic Accuracy of the Phoenix Sepsis Criteria for Mortality in Children With Suspected Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Chieh-Ching Yen, Kuang-Yu Niu, Shang-Jun ZhangJian","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000007312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to evaluate the pooled prognostic accuracy of the Phoenix Sepsis Criteria (PSC) for in-hospital mortality and compare its performance with the International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference (IPSCC) criteria in children with suspected infection.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Eligible studies included prospective or retrospective studies evaluating the PSC among children younger than 18 years with suspected infection in hospital settings.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Two investigators independently screened, extracted study characteristics and accuracy data, and assessed quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>A total of 15 studies (16 cohorts; 2,601,038 encounters) were included. The PSC demonstrated pooled sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.67-0.85), specificity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.51-0.87), diagnostic odds ratio of 9.2 (95% CI, 5.1-16.8), and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.84). In contrast, the IPSCC showed lower performance (AUC, 0.71; difference, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.04-0.19]). In subgroup analyses, PSC specificity was lower in the ICU compared with the emergency department (ED) cohorts (0.48 vs. 0.99).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The PSC demonstrates good prognostic accuracy for mortality and outperforms the IPSCC criteria. However, performance varies by setting, and the PSC is intended for prognostic risk stratification rather than frontline early sepsis screening. Further validation in the ED, ward, and lower-resource settings, as well as the development of context-specific clinical decision support tools, are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"2717-2727"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000007312","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the pooled prognostic accuracy of the Phoenix Sepsis Criteria (PSC) for in-hospital mortality and compare its performance with the International Pediatric Sepsis Consensus Conference (IPSCC) criteria in children with suspected infection.

Data sources: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched.

Study selection: Eligible studies included prospective or retrospective studies evaluating the PSC among children younger than 18 years with suspected infection in hospital settings.

Data extraction: Two investigators independently screened, extracted study characteristics and accuracy data, and assessed quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool.

Data synthesis: A total of 15 studies (16 cohorts; 2,601,038 encounters) were included. The PSC demonstrated pooled sensitivity of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.67-0.85), specificity of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.51-0.87), diagnostic odds ratio of 9.2 (95% CI, 5.1-16.8), and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.84). In contrast, the IPSCC showed lower performance (AUC, 0.71; difference, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.04-0.19]). In subgroup analyses, PSC specificity was lower in the ICU compared with the emergency department (ED) cohorts (0.48 vs. 0.99).

Conclusions: The PSC demonstrates good prognostic accuracy for mortality and outperforms the IPSCC criteria. However, performance varies by setting, and the PSC is intended for prognostic risk stratification rather than frontline early sepsis screening. Further validation in the ED, ward, and lower-resource settings, as well as the development of context-specific clinical decision support tools, are warranted.

凤凰败血症标准对疑似感染儿童死亡率的预测准确性:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:我们旨在评估凤凰脓毒症标准(PSC)对院内死亡率的预后准确性,并将其与国际儿科脓毒症共识会议(IPSCC)标准在疑似感染儿童中的表现进行比较。数据来源:检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane中央对照试验注册库。研究选择:符合条件的研究包括前瞻性或回顾性研究,评估医院环境中18岁以下疑似感染儿童的PSC。数据提取:两名研究者独立筛选、提取研究特征和准确性数据,并使用诊断准确性研究质量评估2工具评估质量。数据综合:共纳入15项研究(16个队列;2,601,038次接触)。PSC的总敏感性为0.77 (95% CI, 0.67-0.85),特异性为0.73 (95% CI, 0.51-0.87),诊断优势比为9.2 (95% CI, 5.1-16.8),曲线下面积(AUC)为0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.84)。相比之下,IPSCC表现出较低的性能(AUC, 0.71;差值,0.10 [95% CI, 0.04-0.19])。在亚组分析中,与急诊科(ED)队列相比,ICU的PSC特异性较低(0.48比0.99)。结论:PSC表现出良好的死亡率预测准确性,优于IPSCC标准。然而,表现因环境而异,PSC用于预后风险分层,而不是一线早期败血症筛查。在急诊科、病房和低资源环境中进一步验证,以及开发针对具体情况的临床决策支持工具是有必要的。
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
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书