ArticleAnnals of intensive care2017
Derivation and validation of a prognostic model for postoperative risk stratification of critically ill patients with faecal peritonitis.
Article in Annals of intensive care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improved 28-day mortality prediction by combining Lactate Dehydrogenase-to-Albumin Ratio(LAR) to lactate-enhanced Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in patients with sepsis: a derivation and validation study.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Patient outcomes and prognostic factors associated with colonic perforation surgery: a retrospective study.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 2022Article
- Article
- Evaluating the Possibility of Translating Technological Advances in Non-Invasive Continuous Lactate Monitoring into Critical Care.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Methodological challenges in European ethics approvals for a genetic epidemiology study in critically ill patients: the GenOSept experience.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Sepsis 3 and the burns patient: do we need Sepsis 3.1?Scars, burns & healingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrognostic scores and models of illness severity are useful both clinically and for research. The aim of this study was to develop two prognostic models for the prediction of long-term (6 months) and 28-day mortality of postoperative critically ill patients with faecal peritonitis (FP).
methodsPatients admitted to intensive care units with faecal peritonitis and recruited to the European GenOSept study were divided into a derivation and a geographical validation subset; patients subsequently recruited to the UK GAinS study were used for temporal validation. Using all 50 clinical and laboratory variables available on day 1 of critical care admission, Cox proportional hazards regression was fitted to select variables for inclusion in two prognostic models, using stepwise selection and nonparametric bootstrapping sampling techniques. Using Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC) analysis, the performance of the models was compared to SOFA and APACHE II.
resultsFive variables (age, SOFA score, lowest temperature, highest heart rate, haematocrit) were entered into the prognostic models. The discriminatory performance of the 6-month prognostic model yielded an AuROC 0.81 (95% CI 0.76-0.86), 0.73 (95% CI 0.69-0.78) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.69-0.83) for the derivation, geographic and temporal external validation cohorts, respectively. The 28-day prognostic tool yielded an AuROC 0.82 (95% CI 0.77-0.88), 0.75 (95% CI 0.69-0.80) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.71-0.87) for the same cohorts. These AuROCs appeared consistently superior to those obtained with the SOFA and APACHE II scores alone.
conclusionsThe two prognostic models developed for 6-month and 28-day mortality prediction in critically ill septic patients with FP, in the postoperative phase, enhanced the day one SOFA score's predictive utility by adding a few key variables: age, lowest recorded temperature, highest recorded heart rate and haematocrit. External validation of their predictive capability in larger cohorts is needed, before introduction of the proposed scores into clinical practice to inform decision making and the design of clinical trials.
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.