ArticleResuscitation plus2020
Use of SOFA score in cardiac arrest research: A scoping review.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of machine learning models to predict 30-day mortality in patients with cardiac arrest complicated by acute kidney injury.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Multiorgan failure in patients after out of hospital resuscitation: a retrospective single center study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2024Article
- The Clinical Utility of Albumin with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) in Improving 30-Day Mortality Prediction in Patients with Infection in the Emergency Department.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score is a commonly used severity-of-illness score in cardiac arrest research. Due to its nature, the SOFA score often has missing data. How much data is missing and how that missing data is handled is unknown.
objectivesWe conducted a scoping review on cardiac arrest studies using SOFA, focusing on missing data. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: All English-language peer-reviewed studies of cardiac arrest with SOFA as an outcome or exposure were included. DATA EXTRACTION: For each study, quantity of missing SOFA data, analytic strategy to handle missing SOFA variables, whether/to what degree mortality influenced the amount of missing SOFA scores), SOFA score modifications, and number of SOFA measurements was extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 66 studies published between 2006-2019. Five studies were randomized controlled trials, 26 were prospective cohort studies, and 25 were retrospective cohort studies. SOFA was used as an outcome in 36 (55%) and a primary outcome in 10 (15%). Nine studies (14%) mentioned the quantity of missing SOFA data, which ranged from 0 to 76% (median: 10% [IQR: 6%, 42%]). Twenty-seven (41%) studies reported a method to handle missing SOFA. The most common method used excluded subjects with missing data (81%). In the 50 studies using serial SOFA scores, 11 (22%) documented mortality prior to SOFA measurement; which ranged from 3% to 76% (median: 12% [IQR: 6%-35%]).
conclusionsMissing data is common in cardiac arrest research using SOFA scores. Variability exists in reporting and handling missing SOFA variables.
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.