ArticlePloS one2020
Comparison of a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score using RASS and FOUR.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic Value of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale for Mortality and Admission in Older Emergency Department Patients.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of 6-hour urine creatinine clearance as the kidney component in the SOFA score: An observational cohort study.Journal of intensive medicine · 2026Article
- Survey of Glasgow Coma Scale and PaOAcute medicine & surgeryArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveICU severity scores such as the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) determine neurologic dysfunction based on the Glasgow Coma Scale, a tool that may be limited in a critically ill population. It remains unknown whether alternative methods to assess for neurologic dysfunction, such as FOUR and RASS, are superior. This study aimed to determine the predictive performance of a modified SOFA tool in a large Brazilian ICU cohort.
designProspective cohort single center study.
settingMixed surgical and medical ICU in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil between August 2015 and December 2018. PATIENTS: All acutely ill ICU admissions, other than postoperative patients or those with insufficient data, were eligible for study inclusion. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
results2147 patients were admitted to the ICU, of which 999 meeting inclusion criteria were included in the final analysis with a median age of 72 years (IQR 58-83) and a female predominance 545 (54%). The SOFA score using GCS, RASS and FOUR for the neurologic component performed marginally in the ability to predict general ICU mortality (SOFAGCS AUC 0.74 vs SOFARASS AUC 0.71 and SOFAFOUR AUC 0.67), with SOFAFOUR performing significantly lower compared to either SOFARASS and SOFAGCS (p<0.04, p<0.004 respectively). All three scores demonstrated decreased discriminate function in the mechanically ventilated population (SOFAGCS AUC 0.70 vs SOFARASS AUC 0.70 and SOFAFOUR AUC 0.55), though SOFAFOUR remained significantly worse when compared to SOFAGCS or SOFARASS (p = 0.034, p = 0.014, respectively).. Furthermore, performance was poor in a subset of patients with sepsis (n = 145) at time of admission (SOFAGCS AUC 0.66 vs SOFARASS AUC 0.55 and SOFAFOUR AUC 0.56).
conclusionModification of the neurologic component in the SOFA score does not appear to improve mortality prediction in the ICU.
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.