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.
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。