平衡精确性和实用性:SOFA与qSOFA在败血症诊断和治疗中的应用。

Laura Diaconu, Florentina Musat, Daniel Ion, Dan Nicolae Paduraru, Alexandra Bolocan, Ovidiu Lucian Bajenaru, Catalina Raluca Nuta, Alexandru Constantinescu, Octavian Andronic
{"title":"平衡精确性和实用性:SOFA与qSOFA在败血症诊断和治疗中的应用。","authors":"Laura Diaconu, Florentina Musat, Daniel Ion, Dan Nicolae Paduraru, Alexandra Bolocan, Ovidiu Lucian Bajenaru, Catalina Raluca Nuta, Alexandru Constantinescu, Octavian Andronic","doi":"10.26574/maedica.2024.19.4.789","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sepsis is a complex and multifaceted condition that remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) and quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) scores are widely used to predict sepsis outcomes, but their utility varies depending on the clinical setting. This narrative review compares the predictive validity, sensitivity and specificity of SOFA and qSOFA, as well as other markers such as serum lactate and SIRS, across different healthcare environments. We conducted a comprehensive literature search of articles published over the last 10 years, focusing on studies that provided full-text access. Our analysis highlights the superior predictive performance of SOFA within intensive care units and the practical advantages of qSOFA in emergency departments. Additionally, this study examines the limitations of these scores and discusses the impact of the 2016 Sepsis-3 definition changes. By synthesizing data from diverse studies, we aimed to provide a thorough understanding of the current landscape of sepsis diagnosis and management, offering insights into how these tools can be optimized to improve patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":74094,"journal":{"name":"Maedica","volume":"19 4","pages":"789-795"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11834853/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Balancing Precision and Practicality: SOFA <i>vs.</i> qSOFA in the Diagnosis and Management of Sepsis.\",\"authors\":\"Laura Diaconu, Florentina Musat, Daniel Ion, Dan Nicolae Paduraru, Alexandra Bolocan, Ovidiu Lucian Bajenaru, Catalina Raluca Nuta, Alexandru Constantinescu, Octavian Andronic\",\"doi\":\"10.26574/maedica.2024.19.4.789\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Sepsis is a complex and multifaceted condition that remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) and quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) scores are widely used to predict sepsis outcomes, but their utility varies depending on the clinical setting. This narrative review compares the predictive validity, sensitivity and specificity of SOFA and qSOFA, as well as other markers such as serum lactate and SIRS, across different healthcare environments. We conducted a comprehensive literature search of articles published over the last 10 years, focusing on studies that provided full-text access. Our analysis highlights the superior predictive performance of SOFA within intensive care units and the practical advantages of qSOFA in emergency departments. Additionally, this study examines the limitations of these scores and discusses the impact of the 2016 Sepsis-3 definition changes. By synthesizing data from diverse studies, we aimed to provide a thorough understanding of the current landscape of sepsis diagnosis and management, offering insights into how these tools can be optimized to improve patient outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Maedica\",\"volume\":\"19 4\",\"pages\":\"789-795\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11834853/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Maedica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26574/maedica.2024.19.4.789\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Maedica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26574/maedica.2024.19.4.789","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

脓毒症是一种复杂和多方面的疾病,仍然是世界范围内发病率和死亡率的主要原因。顺序器官衰竭评估(SOFA)和快速顺序器官衰竭评估(qSOFA)评分被广泛用于预测脓毒症的预后,但其效用因临床环境而异。这篇叙述性综述比较了SOFA和qSOFA以及其他标志物(如血清乳酸和SIRS)在不同医疗保健环境中的预测有效性、敏感性和特异性。我们对过去10年发表的文章进行了全面的文献检索,重点是提供全文访问的研究。我们的分析强调了SOFA在重症监护病房的优越预测性能和qSOFA在急诊科的实际优势。此外,本研究探讨了这些评分的局限性,并讨论了2016年脓毒症-3定义变化的影响。通过综合不同研究的数据,我们旨在全面了解败血症诊断和管理的现状,并提供如何优化这些工具以改善患者预后的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Balancing Precision and Practicality: SOFA vs. qSOFA in the Diagnosis and Management of Sepsis.

Sepsis is a complex and multifaceted condition that remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) and quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) scores are widely used to predict sepsis outcomes, but their utility varies depending on the clinical setting. This narrative review compares the predictive validity, sensitivity and specificity of SOFA and qSOFA, as well as other markers such as serum lactate and SIRS, across different healthcare environments. We conducted a comprehensive literature search of articles published over the last 10 years, focusing on studies that provided full-text access. Our analysis highlights the superior predictive performance of SOFA within intensive care units and the practical advantages of qSOFA in emergency departments. Additionally, this study examines the limitations of these scores and discusses the impact of the 2016 Sepsis-3 definition changes. By synthesizing data from diverse studies, we aimed to provide a thorough understanding of the current landscape of sepsis diagnosis and management, offering insights into how these tools can be optimized to improve patient outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信