ArticleWorld journal of critical care medicine2022
Scoring systems in critically ill: Which one to use in cancer patients?
Article in World journal of critical care medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between elevated multiple circulating biomarkers and short-term mortality in critically ill lung cancer patients: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Oncologic and physiologic predictors of mortality after intensive care unit admission in patients with lung cancer.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2026Article
- Predictive value of baseline levels and early dynamic changes of ctDNA for 28-day mortality in ICU patients with advanced lung cancer: a prospective single-center cohort study.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Article
- Understanding Outcomes in Onco-critical Care: The Role of Frailty and Organ Failure.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Outcomes of Cancer Patients Requiring Non-elective Medical Admission to the Intensive Care Unit of a Tertiary Care Center in India: A 5-year Retrospective Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of Inflammatory Marker Scoring Systems and Conventional Inflammatory Markers in Patients over 65 Years of Age Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScoring systems have not been evaluated in oncology patients. We aimed to assess the performance of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, APACHE III, APACHE IV, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, SAPS III, Mortality Probability Model (MPM) II
aimTo compare the efficacy of seven commonly employed scoring systems to predict outcomes of critically ill cancer patients.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 400 consecutive cancer patients admitted in the medical intensive care unit over a two-year period. Primary outcome was hospital mortality and the secondary outcome measure was comparison of various scoring systems in predicting hospital mortality.
resultsIn our study, the overall intensive care unit and hospital mortality was 43.5% and 57.8%, respectively. All of the seven tested scores underestimated mortality. The mortality as predicted by MPM II
conclusionAll the severity scores were tested under-predicted mortality in the present study. As the difference in efficacy and performance was not statistically significant, the choice of scoring system used may depend on the ease of use and local preferences.
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.