ArticleJournal of intensive care medicine2020
Performance of Critical Care Outcome Prediction Models in an Intermediate Care Unit.
Article in Journal of intensive care medicine, 2020. 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.
- Article
- The Role of Intermediate Care in Supporting Critically Ill Patients and Critical Care Infrastructure.Critical care clinics · 2024Review
- Development and validation of a nomogram for predicting 28-day mortality in patients with ischemic stroke.PloS one · 2024Article
- Comparison of Critical Illness Score in Patients Admitted to Intermediate Care Units of a Tertiary Care Hospital: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study from Karachi, Pakistan.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2024Article
- Development and verification of a nomogram for predicting short-term mortality in elderly ischemic stroke populations.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Elevated Serum Tenascin-C Predicts Mortality in Critically Ill Patients With Multiple Organ Dysfunction.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntermediate care units (IMCUs) are heterogeneous in design and operation, which makes comparative effectiveness studies challenging. A generalizable outcome prediction model could improve such comparisons. However, little is known about the performance of critical care outcome prediction models in the intermediate care setting. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation version II (APACHE II), Simplified Acute Physiology Score version II (SAPS II) and version 3 (SAPS 3), and Mortality Probability Model version III (MPM MATERIALS AND
methodsIn the IMCU of an academic medical center (July to December 2012), the discrimination and calibration of each outcome prediction model were evaluated using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, respectively. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were also calculated.
resultsThe cohort included data from 628 unique IMCU admissions with an inpatient mortality rate of 8.3%. All models exhibited good discrimination, but only the SAPS II and MPM
conclusionsThe SAPS II and MPM
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.