Article Text

Download PDFPDF
SOFA criteria predict infection-related in-hospital mortality in ICU patients better than SIRS criteria and the qSOFA score
  1. Erik Solligård1,2,
  2. Jan Kristian Damås3,4
  1. 1 Mid-Norway Sepsis Research Group and Clinic of Anesthesia, St Olav University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
  2. 2 Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
  3. 3 Department of Infectious Diseases, Mid-Norway Sepsis Research Group, St Olav University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
  4. 4 Centre of Molecular Inflammation Research, NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
  1. Correspondence to Professor Erik Solligård, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, St. Olav’s Hospital, Trondheim 7006, Norway; erik.solligard{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

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 …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.