Trial reportRespiratory research2020
Validation of age, PaO
Trial report in Respiratory research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Predictive Value of Dynamic Changes in Procalcitonin and C-Reactive Protein in Evaluating Response of Patients with Pulmonary Tuberculosis in the Early Treatment.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- Article
- A trauma-related survival predictive model of acute respiratory distress syndrome.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Article
- A Simple-to-Use Web-Based Calculator for Survival Prediction in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Prognostic performance of the Age, PaOTherapeutic advances in infectious diseaseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA predictive scoring system for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients, which incorporates age, PaO
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients who were diagnosed with ARDS using the Berlin criteria and admitted to the medical ICU at Seoul National University Hospital from January 2015 to December 2016. The validation of the APPS was performed by evaluating its calibration and predictive accuracy. Its calibration was plotted and quantified using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Its predictive accuracy was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUC-ROC) curve.
resultsA total of 116 patients were analyzed, 32 of whom survived. Of the 116 patients, 11 (9.5%) were classified as APPS grade 1 (score 3-4), 88 (75.9%) as grade 2 (score 5-7) and 17 (14.6%) as grade 3 (score 8-9). In-hospital mortality was 27.3% for grade 1, 73.9% for grade 2 and 94.1% for grade 3 (P for trend < 0.001). The APPS was well calibrated (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, P = 0.578) and its predictive accuracy was acceptable (AUC-ROC 0.704, 95% confidence interval 0.599-0.809).
conclusionsThe APPS predicted in-hospital mortality in Korean patients with ARDS with similar power to its application in a Western population and with acceptable predictive accuracy.
trial registrationRetrospectively registered.
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.