Early warning scores for sepsis identification and prediction of in‐hospital mortality in adults with sepsis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

• Published in: Journal of clinical nursing Vol. 33; no. 6; pp. 2005 - 2018
• Main Authors: Chua, Wei Ling, Rusli, Khairul Dzakirin Bin, Aitken, Leanne M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.06.2024
• Subjects: Accuracy; Adult; Early Warning Score; Health risks; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Inpatient care; Medical diagnosis; meta‐analysis; Mortality; Organ Dysfunction Scores; qSOFA; Sensitivity and Specificity; Sepsis; Sepsis - diagnosis; Sepsis - mortality; SIRS; Systematic review; Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome - diagnosis; Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome - mortality; Vital signs; mortality; SIRS; meta‐analysis; early warning score; sepsis; qSOFA
• ISSN: 0962-1067; 1365-2702; 1365-2702
• DOI: 10.1111/jocn.17061

Aim The early warning scores (EWS), quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria have been proposed as sepsis screening tools. This review aims to summarise and compare the performance of EWS with the qSOFA and SIRS criteria for predicting sepsis diagnosis and in‐hospital mortality in patients with sepsis. Design A systematic review with meta‐analysis. Review Methods Seven databases were searched from January 1, 2016 until March 10, 2022. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odd ratios were pooled by using the bivariate random effects model. Overall performance was summarised by using the hierarchical summary receiver–operating characteristics curve. This paper adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA‐DTA) guidelines. Results Ten studies involving 52,474 subjects were included in the review. For predicting sepsis diagnosis, the pooled sensitivity of EWS (65%, 95% CI: 55, 75) was similar to SIRS ≥2 (70%, 95% CI: 49, 85) and higher than qSOFA ≥2 (37%, 95% CI: 20, 59). The pooled specificity of EWS (77%, 95% CI: 64, 86) was higher than SIRS ≥2 (62%, 95% CI: 41, 80) but lower than qSOFA ≥2 (94%, 95% CI: 86, 98). Results were similar for the secondary outcome of in‐hospital mortality. Conclusions Although no one scoring system had both high sensitivity and specificity, the EWS had at least equivalent values in most measures of diagnostic accuracy compared with SIRS or qSOFA. Implications for the profession Healthcare systems in which EWS is already in place should consider whether there is any clinical benefit in adopting qSOFA or SIRS. No patient or public contribution This systematic review did not directly involve patient or public contribution to the manuscript.