Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31775846›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2019

The SOFA score-development, utility and challenges of accurate assessment in clinical trials.

Simon Lambden, Pierre Francois Laterre, Mitchell M Levy, Bruno Francois

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05631756 ("Correlation Between PaO2/FiO2 and Lung Ultrasound Score in Patients Admitted to an Intensive Care Unit With Interstitial Syndrome), which is not on this map. Cited by 551 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
551citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
63.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT05631756 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

"Correlation Between PaO2/FiO2 and Lung Ultrasound Score in Patients Admitted to an Intensive Care Unit With Interstitial Syndrome: A Prospective Physiological Study"

TypeinterventionalSponsorCliniques universitaires Saint-Luc- Université Catholique de LouvainRan2023 to 2025Enrolled86ConditionsInterstitial Lung DiseaseArmsLung Ultrasound
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

551 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 940 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

491 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Simon LambdenDepartment of Medicine, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB20Q, UK.
Pierre Francois LaterreSt Luc University Hospital, Université Catholique de Louvain, Avenue Hippocrate 12, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Mitchell M LevyRhode Island Hospital, Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Bruno FrancoisIntensive care unit & Inserm CIC 1435 & Inserm UMR 1092, Dupuytren University Hospital, Limoges, France. b.francois@unilim.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2531-1652
Brown University · USInserm · FRUCLouvain · BEUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment or SOFA score was developed to assess the acute morbidity of critical illness at a population level and has been widely validated as a tool for this purpose across a range of healthcare settings and environments.In recent years, the SOFA score has become extensively used in a range of other applications. A change in the SOFA score of 2 or more is now a defining characteristic of the sepsis syndrome, and the European Medicines Agency has accepted that a change in the SOFA score is an acceptable surrogate marker of efficacy in exploratory trials of novel therapeutic agents in sepsis. The requirement to detect modest serial changes in a patients' SOFA score therefore means that increased clarity on how the score should be assessed in different circumstances is required.This review explores the development of the SOFA score, its applications and the challenges associated with measurement. In addition, it proposes guidance designed to facilitate the consistent and valid assessment of the score in multicentre sepsis trials involving novel therapeutic agents or interventions.ConclusionThe SOFA score is an increasingly important tool in defining both the clinical condition of the individual patient and the response to therapies in the context of clinical trials. Standardisation between different assessors in widespread centres is key to detecting response to treatment if the SOFA score is to be used as an outcome in sepsis clinical trials.

Indexed as

Organ Dysfunction ScoresClinical Trials as TopicHumansProgram DevelopmentResearchSeverity of Illness IndexClinical TrialsCritical Care trialsMultiple organ failureSepsisSequential Organ Failure AssessmentSOFASurrogate endpoints

Identifiers

PMID31775846
PMCPMC6880479
OpenAlexW2990895485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.