ArticleChest2012
Comparison of APACHE III, APACHE IV, SAPS 3, and MPM0III and influence of resuscitation status on model performance.
Article in Chest, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
54 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation of Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 performance: a systematic review of external validation studies.Critical care (London, England) · 2014Pooled it
- The effectiveness of Corticosteroids on mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute lung injury: a secondary analysis.Scientific reports · 2015Trial
- APACHE III Outcome Prediction in Patients Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit with Sepsis Associated Acute Lung Injury.PloS one · 2015Trial
- Prediction Model for Intensive Care Unit Mortality in Patients with Spine Fracture: Can Machine Learning be Used to Improve Current Standards?Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- The A-VIVO score: a novel prognostic tool for predicting mortality in patients with sepsis.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Comparative performance of APACHE II, SOFA, and Charlson Comorbidity Index in sepsis mortality prediction.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2026Observational
- Developing a Mortality Risk Score in Intensive Care Units of Referral Hospitals in Bahir Dar City, Ethiopia: A Prognostic Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Real-time monitoring of in-hospital mortality risk in intensive care units heart failure patients using an extreme gradient boosting model.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2026Article
- Enhancing nurses' competence in mechanical ventilation: a quasi-experimental study and its association with patient severity using APACHE II.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Enhancing prognostic accuracy in sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy: a machine learning approach.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Higher bilirubin on admission predicts better outcome in refractory cardiac arrest: A Prague OHCA trial analysis focused on the antioxidant effect of bilirubin.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Article
- Development and validation of an explainable machine learning model for predicting prognosis in sepsis patients with a history of cancer who were admitted to the intensive care unit.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Predicting Hospital Survival in Patients Admitted to ICU with Pulmonary Embolism.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluating Prognostic Bias of Critical Illness Severity Scores Based on Age, Sex, and Primary Language in the United States: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.Critical care explorations · 2024Article
- A simple mortality prediction model for sepsis patients in intensive care.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2023Article
- Prognostic Performance of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II Scores in Patients with Suspected Infection According to Intensive Care Unit Type.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Prediction of in-hospital mortality among intensive care unit patients using modified daily Laboratory-based Acute Physiology Scores, version 2 (LAPS2).medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Comparison of Severity of Illness Scores and Artificial Intelligence Models That Are Predictive of Intensive Care Unit Mortality: Meta-analysis and Review of the Literature.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Review
- An explainable machine learning framework for lung cancer hospital length of stay prediction.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on byResponse.2013
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere are few comparisons among the most recent versions of the major adult ICU prognostic systems (APACHE [Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation] IV, Simplified Acute Physiology Score [SAPS] 3, Mortality Probability Model [MPM]0III). Only MPM0III includes resuscitation status as a predictor.
methodsWe assessed the discrimination, calibration, and overall performance of the models in 2,596 patients in three ICUs at our tertiary referral center in 2006. For APACHE and SAPS, the analyses were repeated with and without inclusion of resuscitation status as a predictor variable.
resultsOf the 2,596 patients studied, 283 (10.9%) died before hospital discharge. The areas under the curve (95% CI) of the models for prediction of hospital mortality were 0.868 (0.854-0.880), 0.861 (0.847-0.874), 0.801 (0.785-0.816), and 0.721 (0.704-0.738) for APACHE III, APACHE IV, SAPS 3, and MPM0III, respectively. The Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics for the models were 33.7, 31.0, 36.6, and 21.8 for APACHE III, APACHE IV, SAPS 3, and MPM0III, respectively. Each of the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics generated P values < .05, indicating poor calibration. Brier scores for the models were 0.0771, 0.0749, 0.0890, and 0.0932, respectively. There were no significant differences between the discriminative ability or the calibration of APACHE or SAPS with and without “do not resuscitate” status.
conclusionsAPACHE III and IV had similar discriminatory capability and both were better than SAPS 3, which was better than MPM0III. The calibrations of the models studied were poor. Overall, models with more predictor variables performed better than those with fewer. The addition of resuscitation status did not improve APACHE III or IV or SAPS 3 prediction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.