Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29233160›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2017

Comparison of mortality prediction models in acute respiratory distress syndrome undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and development of a novel prediction score: the PREdiction of Survival on ECMO Therapy-Score (PRESET-Score).

Michael Hilder, Frank Herbstreit, Michael Adamzik, Martin Beiderlinden, Markus Bürschen, Jürgen Peters, Ulrich H Frey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Michael HilderKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universität Duisburg-Essen, and Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Frank HerbstreitKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universität Duisburg-Essen, and Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Michael AdamzikKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universität Duisburg-Essen, and Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Martin BeiderlindenKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Marienhospital Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
Markus BürschenKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Marienhospital Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
Jürgen PetersKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universität Duisburg-Essen, and Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.
Ulrich H FreyKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universität Duisburg-Essen, and Universitätsklinikum Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147, Essen, Germany. ulrich.frey@uk-essen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a life-saving therapy in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients but is associated with complications and costs. Here, we validate various scores supposed to predict mortality and develop an optimized categorical model.

methodsIn a derivation cohort, 108 ARDS patients (2010-2015) on veno-venous ECMO were retrospectively analysed to assess four established risk scores (ECMOnet-Score, RESP-Score, PRESERVE-Score, Roch-Score) for mortality prediction (receiver operating characteristic analysis) and to identify by multivariable logistic regression analysis independent variables for mortality to yield the new PRESET-Score (PREdiction of Survival on ECMO Therapy-Score). This new score was then validated both in independent internal (n = 82) and external (n = 59) cohorts.

resultsThe median (25%; 75% quartile) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 14 (12; 16), Simplified Acute Physiology Score II was 62.5 (57; 72.8), median intensive care unit stay was 17 days (range 1-124), and mortality was 62%. Only the ECMOnet-Score (area under curve (AUC) 0.69) and the RESP-Score (AUC 0.64) discriminated survivors and non-survivors. Admission pH

conclusionsWhile our data confirm that both the ECMOnet-Score and the RESP-Score predict mortality in ECMO-treated ARDS patients, we propose a novel model also incorporating extrapulmonary variables, the PRESET-Score. This score predicts mortality much better than previous scores and therefore is a more precise choice for decision support in ARDS patients to be placed on ECMO.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAdultArea Under CurveCohort StudiesExtracorporeal Membrane OxygenationFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedOrgan Dysfunction ScoresRespiratory Distress SyndromeRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentROC CurveStatistics, NonparametricAcute respiratory distress syndromeExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationMortalityPredictionSurvival

Identifiers

PMID29233160
PMCPMC5728043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.