ArticleInternational journal of immunopathology and pharmacology
External validation of the sepsis severity score.
Article in International journal of immunopathology and pharmacology. 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.
- Comparison of predictive values of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores for mortality in sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Development and validation of a prediction model for refeeding syndrome in ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation and enteral nutrition support: a single-center retrospective study from China.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Head-to-head comparison of 19 prediction models for short-term outcome in medical patients in the emergency department: a retrospective study.Annals of medicine · 2023Article
- Explainable Artificial Intelligence Helps in Understanding the Effect of Fibronectin on Survival of Sepsis.Cells · 2022Article
- Positive Role of Delta Neutrophil Index (DNI) as a Prodiagnostic Marker in Cecal Ligation and Puncture (CLP)-Induced Sepsis Murine Model.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSepsis is defined as a life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Mortality rates are high, exceeding 50% in patients with septic shock. The sepsis severity score (SSS) was developed to determine the severity of sepsis and as a prognostic model. The aim of this study was to externally validate the SSS model.
methodsCalibration and discrimination of the SSS were retrospectively evaluated using data from a single-center sepsis registry.
resultsData from 156 septic patients were recorded; 56% of them had septic shock, 94% of patients required mechanical ventilation. The observed hospital mortality was 60.3%. The mean SSS value was 94.4 (95% CI 90.5-98.3). The SSS presented excellent discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.806 (95% CI 0.734-0.866). The pairwise comparison of APACHE II (AUC = 0.789; 95% CI 0.715-0.851) with SSS and 1st day SOFA (AUC = 0.75; 95% CI 0.673-0.817) with SSS revealed no significant differences in discrimination between the models. The calibration of the SSS was good with the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit H test 9.59, P > 0.05. Analyses of calibration curve show absence of accurate predictions in lower deciles of lower risk (2nd and 4th).
conclusionThe SSS demonstrated excellent discrimination. The calibration evaluation gave conflicting results; the H-L test result indicated a good calibration, while the visual analysis of the calibration curve suggested the opposite. The SSS requires further evaluation before it can be safely recommended as an outcome prediction model.
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.