MSOFA: An important step forward, but are we spending too much time on the SOFA?

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Operationalizing Ethical Guidance for Ventilator Allocation in Minnesota: Saving the Most Lives or Exacerbating Health Disparities?Critical care explorations · 2021
   Article
2. Crisis Standards of Care and COVID-19: What Did We Learn? How Do We Ensure Equity? What Should We Do?NAM perspectives · 2021
   Review
3. Duty to Plan: Health Care, Crisis Standards of Care, and Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.NAM perspectives · 2020
   Review

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  A modified sequential organ failure assessment score for critical care triage.2010

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as