ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2022
The value of the ACEF II score in Chinese patients with elective and non-elective cardiac surgery.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk Stratification for Postoperative Mortality in Cardiac Surgery: "Quo Vadis"?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence and predictive models for early detection of acute kidney injury: transforming clinical practice.BMC nephrology · 2024Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the value of the ACEF II score in predicting postoperative hospital death and acute kidney injury requiring dialysis (AKI-D) in Chinese patients.
methodsThis retrospective study included adult patients who underwent cardiopulmonary bypass open heart surgery between January 2010 and December 2015 at Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital. ACEF II was evaluated to predict in-hospital death and AKI-D using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test for calibration and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for discrimination in non-elective and elective cardiac surgery.
resultsA total of 9748 patients were included. Among them, 1080 underwent non-elective surgery, and 8615 underwent elective surgery. Mortality was 1.8% (177/9748). In elective surgery, the area under the ROC (AUC) of the ACEF II score was 0.704 (95% CI: 0.648-0.759), similar to the ACEF score of 0.709 (95% CI: 0.654-0.763). In non-elective surgery, the AUC of the ACEF II score was 0.725 (95% CI: 0.663-0.787), higher than the ACEF score (AUC = 0.625, 95% CI: 0.553-0.697). The incidence of AKI-D was 3.5% (345/9748). The AUC of the ACEF II score was 0.718 (95% CI: 0.687-0.749), higher than the ACEF score (AUC = 0.626, 95% CI: 0.594-0.658).
conclusionACEF and ACEF II have poor discrimination ability in predicting AKI-D in non-elective surgery. The ACEF II and ACEF scores have the same ability to predict in-hospital death in elective cardiac surgery, and the ACEF II score is better in non-elective surgery. The ACEF II score can be used to assess the risk of AKI-D in elective surgery in Chinese adults.
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.