Suppr超能文献

比较 qSOFA 和医院早期预警评分对急诊科疑似脓毒症患者预后的评估:系统评价。

Comparison of qSOFA and Hospital Early Warning Scores for prognosis in suspected sepsis in emergency department patients: a systematic review.

机构信息

School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Emergency Department, Sheffield Children's NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.

出版信息

Emerg Med J. 2022 Apr;39(4):284-294. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2020-210416. Epub 2021 Aug 17.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Sepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and many tools exist to facilitate early recognition. This review compares two tools: the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and Early Warning Scores (National/Modified Early Warning Scores (NEWS/MEWS)) for predicting intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality when applied in the emergency department.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using Medline, CINAHL, Embase and Cochrane Library, handsearching of references and a grey literature search with no language or date restrictions. Two authors selected studies and quality assessment completed using QUADAS-2. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivities and specificities were compared.

RESULTS

13 studies were included, totalling 403 865 patients. All reported mortality and six reported ICU admission.The ranges for AUROC estimates varied from little better than chance to good prediction of mortality (NEWS: 0.59-0.88; qSOFA: 0.57-0.79; MEWS 0.56-0.75), however, individual papers generally reported higher AUROC values for NEWS than qSOFA. NEWS values demonstrated a tendency towards better sensitivity for ICU admission (NEWS ≥5, 46%-91%; qSOFA ≥2, 12%-53%) and mortality (NEWS ≥5, 51%-97%; qSOFA ≥2, 14%-71%) but lower specificity (ICU: NEWS ≥5, 25%-91%; qSOFA ≥2, 67%-99%; mortality: NEWS ≥5, 22%-91%; qSOFA ≥2, 58%-99%).

CONCLUSION

The wide range of AUROC estimates and high heterogeneity limit our conclusions. Allowing for this, the NEWS AUROC was consistently higher than qSOFA within individual papers. Both scores allow threshold setting, determined by the preferred compromise between sensitivity and specificity. At established thresholds NEWS tended to higher sensitivity while qSOFA tended to a higher specificity.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019131414.

摘要

背景

脓毒症是发病率和死亡率的主要原因,有许多工具可以帮助早期识别。本综述比较了两种工具:快速序贯器官衰竭评估(qSOFA)和早期预警评分(国家/改良早期预警评分(NEWS/MEWS)),用于预测急诊科患者入住重症监护病房(ICU)和死亡的风险。

方法

使用 Medline、CINAHL、Embase 和 Cochrane Library 进行文献检索,手检参考文献和灰色文献,无语言和日期限制。两名作者选择研究并使用 QUADAS-2 进行质量评估。比较了受试者工作特征曲线下的面积(AUROC)、敏感性和特异性。

结果

共纳入 13 项研究,总计 403865 例患者。所有研究均报告了死亡率,6 项研究报告了 ICU 入住率。AUROC 估计值的范围从略好于机会到对死亡率的良好预测(NEWS:0.59-0.88;qSOFA:0.57-0.79;MEWS 0.56-0.75),但个别论文通常报告 NEWS 的 AUROC 值高于 qSOFA。NEWS 值在 ICU 入住(NEWS≥5,46%-91%;qSOFA≥2,12%-53%)和死亡率(NEWS≥5,51%-97%;qSOFA≥2,14%-71%)方面具有更好的敏感性趋势,但特异性较低(ICU:NEWS≥5,25%-91%;qSOFA≥2,67%-99%;死亡率:NEWS≥5,22%-91%;qSOFA≥2,58%-99%)。

结论

AUROC 估计值的范围很广,异质性很高,限制了我们的结论。考虑到这一点,NEWS 的 AUROC 在个别论文中始终高于 qSOFA。两种评分都允许设置阈值,由灵敏度和特异性之间的首选折衷决定。在既定阈值下,NEWS 倾向于更高的敏感性,而 qSOFA 倾向于更高的特异性。

PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42019131414。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验