SOFA criteria predict infection-related in-hospital mortality in ICU patients better than SIRS criteria and the qSOFA score.

Evidence-Based Medicine Pub Date : 2017-12-01 Epub Date: 2017-11-10 DOI:10.1136/ebmed-2017-110727
Erik Solligård, Jan Kristian Damås
{"title":"SOFA criteria predict infection-related in-hospital mortality in ICU patients better than SIRS criteria and the qSOFA score.","authors":"Erik Solligård, Jan Kristian Damås","doi":"10.1136/ebmed-2017-110727","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Commentary on : Raith EP, Udy AA, Bailey M, et al . Prognostic accuracy of the SOFA score, SIRS criteria, and qSOFA score for in-hospital mortality among adults with suspected infection admitted to the intensive care unit. JAMA 2017;317:290–300.\n\nThe Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) has redefined sepsis, now defining sepsis as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, with organ failure defined as a two-or-more-point change in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score.1 The new sepsis definition was determined in a retrospective cohort of both intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU encounters.2 The quick SOFA (qSOFA) score (altered mentation, systolic blood pressure ≤100 mm Hg and respiratory rate ≥22/min) was also introduced as a possible useful predictive tool among patients outside the ICU.\n\nThis external validation study compares the discrimination …","PeriodicalId":12182,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110727","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110727","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/11/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Commentary on : Raith EP, Udy AA, Bailey M, et al . Prognostic accuracy of the SOFA score, SIRS criteria, and qSOFA score for in-hospital mortality among adults with suspected infection admitted to the intensive care unit. JAMA 2017;317:290–300. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) has redefined sepsis, now defining sepsis as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, with organ failure defined as a two-or-more-point change in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score.1 The new sepsis definition was determined in a retrospective cohort of both intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU encounters.2 The quick SOFA (qSOFA) score (altered mentation, systolic blood pressure ≤100 mm Hg and respiratory rate ≥22/min) was also introduced as a possible useful predictive tool among patients outside the ICU. This external validation study compares the discrimination …
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
SOFA标准对ICU患者感染相关住院死亡率的预测优于SIRS标准和qSOFA评分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today: Early cholecystectomy is cost-effective in symptomatic cholelithiasis requiring hospitalization. Intensive glucose control in patients with diabetes prevents onset and progression of microalbuminuria, but effects on end-stage kidney disease are still uncertain. Prophylactic platelet transfusion does not reduce risk of clinical bleeding in adults with dengue and thrombocytopaenia. A meta-analysis of positive airway pressure treatment for cardiovascular prevention: why mix apples and pears? Long-acting reversible contraception acceptability and satisfaction is high among adolescents.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1