ArticleMedicine2018
Comparison of the predictive value of scoring systems on the prognosis of cirrhotic patients with suspected infection.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Renal Impairment as an Independent Predictor of Sepsis in Cirrhosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Prognostic significance of lymphocyte PD-1 expression in combination with clinical scoring systems in patients with liver cirrhosis complicated by sepsis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Development of a quantitative index system for evaluating the quality of electronic medical records in disease risk intelligent prediction.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Management of sepsis in a cirrhotic patient admitted to the intensive care unit: A systematic literature review.World journal of hepatology · 2023Article
- Prognostic value of von-Willebrand factor in patients with liver cirrhosis and its relation to other prognostic indicators.World journal of hepatology · 2022Article
- Relationship Between Etiology of Cirrhosis and Survival Among Patients Hospitalized in Intensive Care Units.Mayo Clinic proceedings · 2022Article
- miR-34a overexpression protects against hippocampal neuron damage caused by ketamine-induced anesthesia in immature rats through the Notch-1/NF-κB signaling pathway.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Cirrhotic Patients on Mechanical Ventilation Have a Low Rate of Successful Extubation and Survival.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2020Observational
- Update on diagnosis and management of sepsis in cirrhosis: Current advances.World journal of hepatology · 2020Review
- [Expert consensus on diagnosis and treatment of end-stage liver disease complicated with infections].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cirrhotic patients with infection are prone to develop sepsis or even septic shock rendering poorer prognosis. However, few methods are available to predict the prognosis of cirrhotic patients with infection although there are some scoring systems can be used to predict general patients with cirrhosis. Therefore, we aimed to explore the predictive value of scoring systems in determining the outcome of critically ill cirrhotic patients with suspected infection.This was a retrospective cohort study based on a single-center database. The prognostic accuracy of the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria, quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), chronic liver failure (CLIF)-SOFA, quick CLIF-SOFA (qCLIF-SOFA), CLIF-consortium organ failure (CLIF-C OF), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II were compared by using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve and net benefit with decision curve analysis. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality while the secondary endpoints were duration of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay and ICU mortality.A total of 1438 cirrhotic patients with suspected infection were included in the study. Nearly half the patients (50.2%) were admitted to the ICU due to hepatic encephalopathy and the overall in-hospital mortality was 32.0%. Hospital and ICU mortality increased as the score of each scoring system increased (P < .05 for all trends). The AUROC of CLIF-SOFA (AUROC, 0.742; 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.714-0.770), CLIF-C OF (AUROC, 0.741; 95% CI, 0.713-0.769), and SAPS II (AUROC, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.733-0.786) were significantly higher than SIRS criteria (AUROC, 0.618; 95% CI, 0.590-0.647), qSOFA (AUROC, 0.612; 95% CI, 0.584-0.640), MELD (AUROC, 0.632; 95% CI, 0.601-0.662), or qCLIF-SOFA (AUROC, 0.680; 95% CI, 0.650-0.710) (P < .05 for all). In the decision curve analysis, the net benefit of implementing CLIF-SOFA and CLIF-C OF to predict the prognosis of cirrhotic patients with suspected infection were higher compared with SIRS, qSOFA, MELD, or qCLIF-SOFA.CLIF-SOFA and CLIF-C OF scores, as well as SAPS II were better tools than SIRS, qSOFA, MELD, or qCLIF-SOFA to evaluate the prognosis of critically ill cirrhotic patients with suspected infection.
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.