Abstract：
Awareness and prompt recognition of sepsis are essential for nurses working in the emergency department (ED), enabling them to make an initial assessment of patients and then to sort them according to their condition s severity. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate prognostic accuracy in detecting sepsis in the emergency department by comparing the previous sepsis-2 screening tool, the Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS) and the current sepsis-3 screening tool, the Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA).
This systematic review used the guideline by Bettany-Saltikov and McSherry and was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. A systematic search was conducted using the CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. Study selection and risk of bias was performed independently by pair of authors.
Five articles were included. Overall, SIRS showed higher sensitivity than qSOFA, while qSOFA showed higher specificity than SIRS. The positive predictive value for qSOFA was superior, while there was a minor deviation in negative predictive value between qSOFA and SIRS.
The overall recommendation based on the included studies indicates that qSOFA is the better-suited screening tool for prognostic accuracy in detecting sepsis in the emergency department.
This systematic review used the guideline by Bettany-Saltikov and McSherry and was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. A systematic search was conducted using the CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE databases. Study selection and risk of bias was performed independently by pair of authors.
Five articles were included. Overall, SIRS showed higher sensitivity than qSOFA, while qSOFA showed higher specificity than SIRS. The positive predictive value for qSOFA was superior, while there was a minor deviation in negative predictive value between qSOFA and SIRS.
The overall recommendation based on the included studies indicates that qSOFA is the better-suited screening tool for prognostic accuracy in detecting sepsis in the emergency department.
摘要：
背景：对败血症的认识和迅速认识对于在急诊科（ED）工作的护士至关重要，使他们能够对患者进行初步评估，然后根据他们的病情的严重程度对他们进行分类。这项系统评价的目的是通过比较以前的脓毒症-2筛查工具，来调查急诊科检测脓毒症的预后准确性。全身炎症反应综合征(SIRS)和目前的脓毒症-3筛查工具，快速序贯器官衰竭评估(qSOFA)。
方法：本系统评价使用Bettany-Saltikov和McSherry的指南，并根据系统评价和荟萃分析（PRISMA）2020检查表的首选报告项目进行报告。该协议已在PROSPERO注册。使用CINAHL进行了系统的搜索，EMBASE和MEDLINE数据库。研究选择和偏倚风险由一对作者独立进行。
结果：共5篇。总的来说,SIRS显示出比qSOFA更高的灵敏度，而qSOFA表现出比SIRS更高的特异性。qSOFA的阳性预测值优越，而qSOFA和SIRS之间的阴性预测值存在微小偏差。
结论：基于纳入研究的总体建议表明，qSOFA是更适合在急诊科检测脓毒症预后准确性的筛查工具。
方法：本系统评价使用Bettany-Saltikov和McSherry的指南，并根据系统评价和荟萃分析（PRISMA）2020检查表的首选报告项目进行报告。该协议已在PROSPERO注册。使用CINAHL进行了系统的搜索，EMBASE和MEDLINE数据库。研究选择和偏倚风险由一对作者独立进行。
结果：共5篇。总的来说,SIRS显示出比qSOFA更高的灵敏度，而qSOFA表现出比SIRS更高的特异性。qSOFA的阳性预测值优越，而qSOFA和SIRS之间的阴性预测值存在微小偏差。
结论：基于纳入研究的总体建议表明，qSOFA是更适合在急诊科检测脓毒症预后准确性的筛查工具。
