预测儿童脓毒症和感染性休克的凤凰标准筛选工具的比较。

IF 6.2 2区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS
Nathan Georgette,Kenneth Michelson,Michael Monuteaux,Matthew A Eisenberg
{"title":"预测儿童脓毒症和感染性休克的凤凰标准筛选工具的比较。","authors":"Nathan Georgette,Kenneth Michelson,Michael Monuteaux,Matthew A Eisenberg","doi":"10.1542/peds.2025-071155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES\r\nThe Phoenix criteria for pediatric sepsis and septic shock have recently been proposed for worldwide application. The Phoenix sepsis criteria are based on organ dysfunction scoring. Although many screening tools exist, their performance in predicting Phoenix outcomes is not known. We hypothesized that the quick Pediatric Septic Shock Screening Score (qPS4) would demonstrate greater sensitivity compared with the Liverpool quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (LqSOFA) and a commonly used 2-stage screening tool created at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP).\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nWe performed a secondary analysis of the qPS4 validation set data from a retrospective cohort study of pediatric emergency department patients with suspected infection. The exposure was a positive screen prior to outcome occurring. We calculated the predictive characteristics of qPS4, LqSOFA, and CHOP for Phoenix sepsis and septic shock within 24 hours of arrival.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nWe analyzed 47 176 encounters. Within 24 hours of arrival to the ED, 628 (1.3%) met criteria for sepsis and 228 (0.5%) met criteria for septic shock. The qPS4 predicted sepsis with 67.8% sensitivity and 89.6% specificity compared with LqSOFA (sensitivity 47.0%, specificity 95.7%) and the CHOP screen (sensitivity 49.7%, specificity 92.1%) (P < .05 for all compared to qPS4). The qPS4 predicted septic shock with 85.5% sensitivity and 89.0% specificity compared with LqSOFA (sensitivity 59.2%, specificity 95.2%) and the 2-stage CHOP screen (sensitivity 64.9%, specificity 91.5%) (P < .05 for all compared to qPS4).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nThe qPS4 predicted Phoenix sepsis and septic shock with greater sensitivity and clinically similar specificity compared with widely used bedside tools.","PeriodicalId":20028,"journal":{"name":"Pediatrics","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Screening Tools for Predicting Phoenix Criteria Sepsis and Septic Shock among Children.\",\"authors\":\"Nathan Georgette,Kenneth Michelson,Michael Monuteaux,Matthew A Eisenberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1542/peds.2025-071155\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES\\r\\nThe Phoenix criteria for pediatric sepsis and septic shock have recently been proposed for worldwide application. The Phoenix sepsis criteria are based on organ dysfunction scoring. Although many screening tools exist, their performance in predicting Phoenix outcomes is not known. We hypothesized that the quick Pediatric Septic Shock Screening Score (qPS4) would demonstrate greater sensitivity compared with the Liverpool quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (LqSOFA) and a commonly used 2-stage screening tool created at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP).\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nWe performed a secondary analysis of the qPS4 validation set data from a retrospective cohort study of pediatric emergency department patients with suspected infection. The exposure was a positive screen prior to outcome occurring. We calculated the predictive characteristics of qPS4, LqSOFA, and CHOP for Phoenix sepsis and septic shock within 24 hours of arrival.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nWe analyzed 47 176 encounters. Within 24 hours of arrival to the ED, 628 (1.3%) met criteria for sepsis and 228 (0.5%) met criteria for septic shock. The qPS4 predicted sepsis with 67.8% sensitivity and 89.6% specificity compared with LqSOFA (sensitivity 47.0%, specificity 95.7%) and the CHOP screen (sensitivity 49.7%, specificity 92.1%) (P < .05 for all compared to qPS4). The qPS4 predicted septic shock with 85.5% sensitivity and 89.0% specificity compared with LqSOFA (sensitivity 59.2%, specificity 95.2%) and the 2-stage CHOP screen (sensitivity 64.9%, specificity 91.5%) (P < .05 for all compared to qPS4).\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nThe qPS4 predicted Phoenix sepsis and septic shock with greater sensitivity and clinically similar specificity compared with widely used bedside tools.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatrics\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2025-071155\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2025-071155","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的凤凰标准最近被提议在全球范围内应用。凤凰败血症标准是基于器官功能障碍评分。虽然存在许多筛选工具,但它们在预测凤凰号结果方面的表现尚不清楚。我们假设快速儿童感染性休克筛查评分(qPS4)比利物浦快速顺序器官衰竭评估(LqSOFA)和费城儿童医院(CHOP)常用的两阶段筛查工具具有更高的敏感性。方法:我们对一项来自儿科急诊科疑似感染患者的回顾性队列研究的qPS4验证集数据进行了二次分析。在结果发生之前,暴露为阳性筛查。我们计算了24小时内qPS4、LqSOFA和CHOP对凤凰脓毒症和脓毒性休克的预测特征。结果我们分析了47 176例病例。在到达急诊室的24小时内,628例(1.3%)符合败血症标准,228例(0.5%)符合感染性休克标准。与LqSOFA(敏感性47.0%,特异性95.7%)和CHOP筛查(敏感性49.7%,特异性92.1%)相比,qPS4预测脓毒症的敏感性为67.8%,特异性为89.6% (P < 0.05)。与qPS4相比,所有人均为0.05)。与LqSOFA(敏感性59.2%,特异性95.2%)和2期CHOP筛查(敏感性64.9%,特异性91.5%)相比,qPS4预测脓毒性休克的敏感性为85.5%,特异性为89.0% (P < 0.05)。与qPS4相比,所有人均为0.05)。结论qPS4预测凤凰脓毒症和脓毒性休克的敏感性更高,临床特异性相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing Screening Tools for Predicting Phoenix Criteria Sepsis and Septic Shock among Children.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The Phoenix criteria for pediatric sepsis and septic shock have recently been proposed for worldwide application. The Phoenix sepsis criteria are based on organ dysfunction scoring. Although many screening tools exist, their performance in predicting Phoenix outcomes is not known. We hypothesized that the quick Pediatric Septic Shock Screening Score (qPS4) would demonstrate greater sensitivity compared with the Liverpool quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (LqSOFA) and a commonly used 2-stage screening tool created at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). METHODS We performed a secondary analysis of the qPS4 validation set data from a retrospective cohort study of pediatric emergency department patients with suspected infection. The exposure was a positive screen prior to outcome occurring. We calculated the predictive characteristics of qPS4, LqSOFA, and CHOP for Phoenix sepsis and septic shock within 24 hours of arrival. RESULTS We analyzed 47 176 encounters. Within 24 hours of arrival to the ED, 628 (1.3%) met criteria for sepsis and 228 (0.5%) met criteria for septic shock. The qPS4 predicted sepsis with 67.8% sensitivity and 89.6% specificity compared with LqSOFA (sensitivity 47.0%, specificity 95.7%) and the CHOP screen (sensitivity 49.7%, specificity 92.1%) (P < .05 for all compared to qPS4). The qPS4 predicted septic shock with 85.5% sensitivity and 89.0% specificity compared with LqSOFA (sensitivity 59.2%, specificity 95.2%) and the 2-stage CHOP screen (sensitivity 64.9%, specificity 91.5%) (P < .05 for all compared to qPS4). CONCLUSIONS The qPS4 predicted Phoenix sepsis and septic shock with greater sensitivity and clinically similar specificity compared with widely used bedside tools.
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
Pediatrics
Pediatrics 医学-小儿科
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
5.00%
发文量
791
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: The Pediatrics® journal is the official flagship journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). It is widely cited in the field of pediatric medicine and is recognized as the leading journal in the field. The journal publishes original research and evidence-based articles, which provide authoritative information to help readers stay up-to-date with the latest developments in pediatric medicine. The content is peer-reviewed and undergoes rigorous evaluation to ensure its quality and reliability. Pediatrics also serves as a valuable resource for conducting new research studies and supporting education and training activities in the field of pediatrics. It aims to enhance the quality of pediatric outpatient and inpatient care by disseminating valuable knowledge and insights. As of 2023, Pediatrics has an impressive Journal Impact Factor (IF) Score of 8.0. The IF is a measure of a journal's influence and importance in the scientific community, with higher scores indicating a greater impact. This score reflects the significance and reach of the research published in Pediatrics, further establishing its prominence in the field of pediatric medicine.
×
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