TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of different scores for diagnosis and mortality prediction of adults with sepsis in Low-and-Middle-Income Countries
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Adegbite, Bayode R.
AU - Edoa, Jean R.
AU - Ndzebe Ndoumba, Wilfrid F.
AU - Dimessa Mbadinga, Lia B.
AU - Mombo-Ngoma, Ghyslain
AU - Jacob, Shevin T.
AU - Rylance, Jamie
AU - Hänscheid, Thomas
AU - Adegnika, Ayola A.
AU - Grobusch, Martin P.
N1 - Funding Information: This research was partially funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (17/63/42) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK government. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Author(s)
PY - 2021/12/1
Y1 - 2021/12/1
N2 - Background: Clinical scores for sepsis have been primarily developed for, and applied in High-Income Countries. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the performance of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), and Universal Vital Assessment (UVA) scores for diagnosis and prediction of mortality in patients with suspected infection in Low-and-Middle-Income Countries. Methods: PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched until May 18, 2021. Studies reporting the performance of at least one of the above-mentioned scores for predicting mortality in patients of 15 years of age and older with suspected infection or sepsis were eligible. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used for risk-of-bias assessment. PRISMA guidelines were followed (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020153906). The bivariate random-effects regression model was used to pool the individual sensitivities, specificities and areas-under-the-curve (AUC). Findings: Twenty-four articles (of 5669 identified) with 27,237 patients were eligible for inclusion. qSOFA pooled sensitivity was 0·70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0·60–0·78), specificity 0·73 (95% CI 0·67–0·79), and AUC 0·77 (95% CI 0·72–0·82). SIRS pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 0·88 (95% CI 0·79 -0·93), 0·34 (95% CI 0·25–0·44), and 0·69 (95% CI 0·50–0·83), respectively. MEWS pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 0·70 (95% CI 0·57 -0·81), 0·61 (95% CI 0·42–0·77), and 0·72 (95% CI 0·64–0·77), respectively. UVA pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 0·49 (95% CI 0·33 -0·65), 0·91(95% CI 0·84–0·96), and 0·76 (95% CI 0·44–0·93), respectively. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the pooled analysis. Interpretation: Individual score performances ranged from poor to acceptable. Future studies should combine selected or modified elements of different scores. Funding: Partially funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (17/63/42).
AB - Background: Clinical scores for sepsis have been primarily developed for, and applied in High-Income Countries. This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the performance of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), and Universal Vital Assessment (UVA) scores for diagnosis and prediction of mortality in patients with suspected infection in Low-and-Middle-Income Countries. Methods: PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched until May 18, 2021. Studies reporting the performance of at least one of the above-mentioned scores for predicting mortality in patients of 15 years of age and older with suspected infection or sepsis were eligible. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used for risk-of-bias assessment. PRISMA guidelines were followed (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020153906). The bivariate random-effects regression model was used to pool the individual sensitivities, specificities and areas-under-the-curve (AUC). Findings: Twenty-four articles (of 5669 identified) with 27,237 patients were eligible for inclusion. qSOFA pooled sensitivity was 0·70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0·60–0·78), specificity 0·73 (95% CI 0·67–0·79), and AUC 0·77 (95% CI 0·72–0·82). SIRS pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 0·88 (95% CI 0·79 -0·93), 0·34 (95% CI 0·25–0·44), and 0·69 (95% CI 0·50–0·83), respectively. MEWS pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 0·70 (95% CI 0·57 -0·81), 0·61 (95% CI 0·42–0·77), and 0·72 (95% CI 0·64–0·77), respectively. UVA pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 0·49 (95% CI 0·33 -0·65), 0·91(95% CI 0·84–0·96), and 0·76 (95% CI 0·44–0·93), respectively. Significant heterogeneity was observed in the pooled analysis. Interpretation: Individual score performances ranged from poor to acceptable. Future studies should combine selected or modified elements of different scores. Funding: Partially funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (17/63/42).
KW - MEWS
KW - SIRS
KW - UVA
KW - low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs)
KW - qSOFA
KW - sepsis
KW - severity scores
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85122807056&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34765956
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101184
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101184
M3 - Article
C2 - 34765956
SN - 2589-5370
VL - 42
SP - 101184
JO - EClinicalMedicine
JF - EClinicalMedicine
M1 - 101184
ER -