ArticleRevista Brasileira de terapia intensiva
Comparison of SAPS 3 performance in patients with and without solid tumor admitted to an intensive care unit in Brazil: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Performance of Pediatric Risk of Mortality IV in Brazilian PICUs: A Multicenter Prospective Study.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the performance of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3) in patients with and without solid cancer who were admitted to the intensive care unit of a comprehensive oncological hospital in Brazil.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort analysis of our administrative database of the first admission of adult patients to the intensive care unit from 2012 to 2016. The patients were categorized according to the presence of solid cancer. We evaluated discrimination using the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration using the calibration belt approach.
resultsWe included 7,254 patients (41.5% had cancer, and 12.1% died during hospitalization). Oncological patients had higher hospital mortality than nononcological patients (14.1% versus 10.6%, respectively; p < 0.001). SAPS 3 discrimination was better for oncological patients (AUROC = 0.85) than for nononcological patients (AUROC = 0.79) (p < 0.001). After we applied the calibration belt in oncological patients, the SAPS 3 matched the average observed rates with a confidence level of 95%. In nononcological patients, the SAPS 3 overestimated mortality in those with a low-middle risk. Calibration was affected by the time period only for nononcological patients.
conclusionSAPS 3 performed differently between oncological and nononcological patients in our single-center cohort, and variation over time (mainly calibration) was observed. This finding should be taken into account when evaluating severity-of-illness score performance.
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.