ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Prognostic Performance of Existing Scoring Systems among Critically Ill Patients Requiring Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy: An Observational Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. 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.
- Interpretations of the Role of Plasma Albumin in Prognostic Indices: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Explainable Machine Learning-Based Risk Prediction Model for In-Hospital Mortality after Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy Initiation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Nursing Countermeasures of Continuous Renal Replacement Treatment in End-Stage Renal Disease with Refractory Hypotension in the Context of Smart Health.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAmong critical patients, few studies have evaluated the discrimination of current illness scoring systems in predicting outcomes after continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) initiation.
methodsPatients receiving CRRT in the ICU between 2005 and 2018 from the Chang Gung Research Database were extracted. All the components of the Acute Physiology Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), qSOFA, and MOSAIC scoring systems on days 1, 3, and 7 of CRRT were recorded. Patients older than 80 years were identified and analyzed separately.
resultsWe identified 3370 adult patients for analysis. The discrimination ability of the scoring systems was acceptable at day 7 after CRRT initiation, including SOFA (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 74.1% (95% confidence interval, 71.7-76.5%)), APACHEIII (74.7% (72.3-77.1%)), and MOSAIC (71.3% (68.8%-73.9%)). These systems were not ideal on days 1 and 3, and that of qSOFA was poor at any time point. The discrimination performance was slightly better among patients ≥80 years.
conclusionsAPACHE III, MOSAIC, and SOFA can be intensivists and families' reference to make their decision of withdrawing or withholding CRRT after a short period of treatment, especially in adults ≥80 years old.
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.