Diagnostic Accuracy of Simplified Prehospital Sepsis Screening Tools for Identifying Sepsis and Predicting 30-Day Mortality: A Retrospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study.
IF 4.3 2区 医学Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
{"title":"Diagnostic Accuracy of Simplified Prehospital Sepsis Screening Tools for Identifying Sepsis and Predicting 30-Day Mortality: A Retrospective Diagnostic Accuracy Study.","authors":"Thongpitak Huabbangyang, Gawin Tiyawat, Nitiporn Puysopa, Thapanee Wattanasaringkarn, Jiratchaya Khunjan, Warinthorn Inthanon, Nattanicha Duangkaew, Chanathip Wanphen, Adisak Nithimathachoke","doi":"10.2147/CLEP.S620744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early recognition of sepsis in prehospital settings remains challenging because emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians must make rapid triage decisions using limited physiological information before hospital arrival. Several sepsis screening tools have been validated in emergency department settings; however, comparative evidence in prehospital populations remains limited.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study evaluated the diagnostic and prognostic performance of five simplified screening tools-mNEWS, qSOFA, mSIRS, mSOS, and MEWS-for identifying sepsis and predicting 30-day mortality in prehospital patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective diagnostic accuracy study included 268 adult patients (≥18 years) transported by Vajira Emergency Medical Service, Bangkok, Thailand, to Vajira Hospital between January 2018 and October 2024. Prehospital clinical parameters recorded by paramedics and emergency nurse practitioners were analyzed against the final hospital diagnosis of sepsis and 30-day in-hospital mortality. Predefined thresholds (mSOS ≥4, MEWS ≥5, mNEWS ≥5, qSOFA ≥2, and mSIRS ≥2) were used for the primary analyses. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC), sensitivity, and specificity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 268 patients, MEWS demonstrated the highest discrimination for identifying sepsis (AuROC 0.84; sensitivity 64.9%; specificity 79.1%). mSOS (AuROC 0.83) and mSIRS (AuROC 0.82) demonstrated high sensitivity (>96%) but lower specificity (~60%), while mNEWS showed the highest sensitivity (99.3%) but poor specificity (47.0%). qSOFA demonstrated the lowest discrimination (AuROC 0.72). For predicting 30-day mortality, MEWS demonstrated the highest performance (AuROC 0.70; sensitivity 72.2%; specificity 64.5%), followed by mNEWS and mSOS (AuROC 0.69 each), whereas qSOFA (AuROC 0.64) and mSIRS (AuROC 0.60) demonstrated lower discrimination.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MEWS demonstrated the most balanced diagnostic performance for identifying sepsis and predicting 30-day mortality in prehospital patients. Highly sensitive tools may be useful for early screening, whereas MEWS may better support risk stratification. Further external validation is required before broader implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":10362,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"18 ","pages":"620744"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13555330/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S620744","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Early recognition of sepsis in prehospital settings remains challenging because emergency medical services (EMS) clinicians must make rapid triage decisions using limited physiological information before hospital arrival. Several sepsis screening tools have been validated in emergency department settings; however, comparative evidence in prehospital populations remains limited.
Purpose: This study evaluated the diagnostic and prognostic performance of five simplified screening tools-mNEWS, qSOFA, mSIRS, mSOS, and MEWS-for identifying sepsis and predicting 30-day mortality in prehospital patients.
Methods: This retrospective diagnostic accuracy study included 268 adult patients (≥18 years) transported by Vajira Emergency Medical Service, Bangkok, Thailand, to Vajira Hospital between January 2018 and October 2024. Prehospital clinical parameters recorded by paramedics and emergency nurse practitioners were analyzed against the final hospital diagnosis of sepsis and 30-day in-hospital mortality. Predefined thresholds (mSOS ≥4, MEWS ≥5, mNEWS ≥5, qSOFA ≥2, and mSIRS ≥2) were used for the primary analyses. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC), sensitivity, and specificity.
Results: Among 268 patients, MEWS demonstrated the highest discrimination for identifying sepsis (AuROC 0.84; sensitivity 64.9%; specificity 79.1%). mSOS (AuROC 0.83) and mSIRS (AuROC 0.82) demonstrated high sensitivity (>96%) but lower specificity (~60%), while mNEWS showed the highest sensitivity (99.3%) but poor specificity (47.0%). qSOFA demonstrated the lowest discrimination (AuROC 0.72). For predicting 30-day mortality, MEWS demonstrated the highest performance (AuROC 0.70; sensitivity 72.2%; specificity 64.5%), followed by mNEWS and mSOS (AuROC 0.69 each), whereas qSOFA (AuROC 0.64) and mSIRS (AuROC 0.60) demonstrated lower discrimination.
Conclusion: MEWS demonstrated the most balanced diagnostic performance for identifying sepsis and predicting 30-day mortality in prehospital patients. Highly sensitive tools may be useful for early screening, whereas MEWS may better support risk stratification. Further external validation is required before broader implementation.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Epidemiology is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal. Clinical Epidemiology focuses on the application of epidemiological principles and questions relating to patients and clinical care in terms of prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment.
Clinical Epidemiology welcomes papers covering these topics in form of original research and systematic reviews.
Clinical Epidemiology has a special interest in international electronic medical patient records and other routine health care data, especially as applied to safety of medical interventions, clinical utility of diagnostic procedures, understanding short- and long-term clinical course of diseases, clinical epidemiological and biostatistical methods, and systematic reviews.
When considering submission of a paper utilizing publicly-available data, authors should ensure that such studies add significantly to the body of knowledge and that they use appropriate validated methods for identifying health outcomes.
The journal has launched special series describing existing data sources for clinical epidemiology, international health care systems and validation studies of algorithms based on databases and registries.