SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Sepsis screening tools in resource-limited settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy in low- and middle-income countries.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sepsis causes disproportionate mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), yet evidence on screening tool performance in these resource-limited settings remains fragmented. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of sepsis screening tools-ranging from purely clinical assessments (qSOFA, NEWS, MEWS, UVA) to those incorporating laboratory parameters (SIRS, SOFA)-for sepsis identification in adult populations within LMICs. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Global Index Medicus was conducted from inception through June 2025. Eligible studies evaluated sepsis screening tools ranging from purely clinical bedside assessments (qSOFA, NEWS, MEWS, UVA) to those requiring basic laboratory parameters (SIRS, SOFA), enabling comparison across the resource-availability spectrum in LMICs. Bivariate random-effects models were employed to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Evidence quality was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: Twenty-seven studies encompassing 30,310 patients across 14 LMICs were included. qSOFA demonstrated pooled sensitivity of 0.51 (95% CI: 0.42-0.60) and specificity of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.88) with AUROC of 0.74. SIRS exhibited high sensitivity (0.86) but poor specificity (0.32). NEWS achieved the highest point estimate of discriminative ability (AUROC 0.77, 95% CI: 0.73-0.81), followed by SOFA (AUROC 0.75, 95% CI: 0.71-0.79) and UVA (AUROC 0.74, 95% CI: 0.70-0.78), although confidence intervals overlapped substantially across tools. qSOFA yielded a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 3.00 and a negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.59, indicating moderate rule-in but limited rule-out utility. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies (I Conclusion: No single screening tool demonstrates optimal performance across all metrics in LMIC populations. When analysis is restricted to purely clinical tools requiring no laboratory parameters, NEWS (AUROC 0.77) and qSOFA (AUROC 0.74) demonstrate comparable discriminative ability with broadly overlapping confidence intervals, supporting their consideration in the most resource-constrained settings. However, the limited rule-out capacity of qSOFA (LR - 0.59) suggests it should not be used as a standalone screening tool. Tool selection should be guided by local healthcare priorities and available laboratory capacity, with tiered screening strategies potentially optimizing sepsis recognition while ensuring efficient resource allocation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.