ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2020
Evaluation and Validation of Four Scoring Systems: the APACHE IV, SAPS III, MPM0 II, and ICMM in Critically Ill Cancer Patients.
Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identifying early-measured variables associated with APACHE IVa providing incorrect in-hospital mortality predictions for critical care patients.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Epidemiology, Clinical Characteristics, and Prognostic Factors in Critically Ill Patients with Hematolymphoid Malignancy.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021Article
- Ideal Severity of Illness Scoring System for Critically Ill Cancer Patients: A Dream.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsTo evaluate and validate four severity-of-illness scores, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation IV (APACHE IV), simplified acute physiology score III (SAPS III), mortality probability models II at 0 hours (MPM0 II), and ICU cancer mortality model (ICMM), in a prospective cohort of critically ill cancer patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsSingle-center, prospective observational study performed in a 14-bedded combined medical-surgical ICU of a tertiary care cancer center of India, from July 2014 to November 2015. Score performance was judged by discrimination and calibration, using the area under receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, respectively.
resultsA total of 431 patients were included in the study. Intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality were 37.4% and 41.1%, respectively. The area under ROC curve for APACHE IV, SAPS III, MPM0 II, and ICMM were 0.73, 0.70, 0.67, and 0.67, respectively. Calibration as calculated by Hosmer-Lemeshow analysis type C statistics for APACHE IV, SAPS III, MPM0 II, and ICMM shows good calibration with Chi-square values of 5.32, 9.285, 9.873, and 9.855 and
conclusionAll the four models had moderate discrimination and good calibration. However, none of the mortality prediction models could accurately discriminate between survivors and nonsurvivors in our patients. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Siddiqui SS, Narkhede AM, Kulkarni AP, Prabu NR, Chaudhari HK, Divatia JV,
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.