4.7 Review

Early Warning Scores do not accurately predict mortality in sepsis: A meta-analysis and systematic review of the literature

Journal

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
Volume 76, Issue 3, Pages 241-248

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2018.01.002

Keywords

Sepsis; Mortality; Early Warning Scores; Infection; Scoring

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) West at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Early Warning Scores are used to evaluate patients in many hospital settings. It is not clear if these are accurate in predicting mortality in sepsis. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of multiple studies in sepsis. Our aim was to estimate the accuracy of EWS for mortality in this setting. Methods: PubMED, CINAHL, Cochrane, Web of Science and EMBASE were searched to October 2016. Studies of adults with sepsis who had EWS calculated using any appropriate tool (e.g. NEWS, MEWS) were eligible for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using QUADAS-2. Summary estimates were derived using HSROC analysis. Results: Six studies (4298 participants) were included. Results suggest that EWS cannot be used to predict which patients with sepsis will (positive likelihood ratio 1.79, 95% CI 1.53 to 2.11) or will not die (negative likelihood ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.78). Two studies were rated as low risk of bias and one as unclear risk of bias on all domains. The other three studies were judged at high risk of bias in one domain. Conclusion: Early Warning Scores are not sufficiently accurate to rule in or rule out mortality in patients with sepsis, based on the evidence available, which is generally poor quality. Crown Copyright (c) 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The British Infection Association. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available