Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32881963›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Score performance of SAPS 2 and SAPS 3 in combination with biomarkers IL-6, PCT or CRP.

Michael Jahn, Jan Rekowski, Rolf Alexander Jánosi, Andreas Kribben, Ali Canbay, Antonios Katsounas

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael JahnDepartment of Nephrology, University of Duisburg-Essen, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7493-205X
Jan RekowskiInstitute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Duisburg-Essen, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Rolf Alexander JánosiDepartment of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, West German Heart and Vascular Center, University of Duisburg-Essen, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9966-6886
Andreas KribbenDepartment of Nephrology, University of Duisburg-Essen, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Ali CanbayDepartment of Medicine, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitätsklinikum Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum GmbH, Bochum, Germany.
Antonios KatsounasDepartment of Medicine, Ruhr-University Bochum, Universitätsklinikum Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum GmbH, Bochum, Germany.
Essen University Hospital · DEUniversitätsklinikum Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the effects of combining the Simplified-Acute-Physiology-Score (SAPS) 2 or the SAPS 3 with Interleukin-6 (IL-6) or Procalcitonin (PCT) or C-Reactive Protein (CRP) concentrations for predicting in-hospital mortality. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis retrospective study was conducted in an interdisciplinary 22-bed intensive care unit (ICU) at a German university hospital. Within an 18-month period, SAPS 2 and SAPS 3 were calculated for 514 critically ill patients that were admitted to the internal medicine department. To evaluate discrimination performance, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) and the 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated for each score, exclusively or in combination with IL-6 or PCT or CRP. DeLong test was used to compare different AUROCs.

resultsThe SAPS 2 exhibited a better discrimination performance than SAPS 3 with AUROCs of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.76-0.86) and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.66-0.78), respectively. Overall, combination of the SAPS 2 with IL-6 showed the best discrimination performance (AUROC 0.82; 95% CI, 0.77-0.87), albeit not significantly different from SAPS2. IL-6 performed better than PCT and CRP with AUROCs of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.69-0.81), 0.72 (95% CI, 0.66-0.77) and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.59-0.72), respectively. Performance of the SAPS 3 improved significantly when combined with IL-6 (AUROC 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.81) or PCT (AUROC 0.73; 95% CI, 0.67-0.78).

conclusionsOur analysis provided evidence that the risk stratification performance of the SAPS 3 and, to a lesser degree, also of the SAPS 2 can increase when combined with IL-6. A more accurate detection of aberrant or dysregulated systemic immunological responses (by IL-6) may explain the higher performance achieved by SAPS 3 + IL-6 vs. SAPS 3. Thus, implementation of IL-6 in critical care scores can improve prediction outcomes, especially in patients experiencing acute inflammatory conditions; however, statistical results may vary across hospital types and/or patient populations with different case mix.

Indexed as

Hospital MortalitySimplified Acute Physiology ScoreAcute DiseaseAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkersC-Reactive ProteinCritical CareFemaleGermanyHospitals, UniversityHumansIntensive Care UnitsInterleukin-6BiomarkersC-Reactive ProteinIL6 protein, humanInterleukin-6Procalcitonin

Identifiers

PMID32881963
PMCPMC7470390
OpenAlexW3083228712

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.