ArticleCritical care (London, England)2023
Subjective and objective survival prediction in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2023. 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.
- Development and validation of a prediction score for early identification of palliative care needs for patients in the intensive care unit: a multicentre retrospective cohort study.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Early Sitting Improves the Accuracy of Predicting In-Hospital Mortality in Older Adult Patients With Pneumonia.Cureus · 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundICU risk assessment tools, routinely used for predicting population outcomes, are not recommended for evaluating individual risk. The state of health of single patients is mostly subjectively assessed to inform relatives and presumably to decide on treatment decisions. However, little is known how subjective and objective survival estimates compare.
methodsWe performed a prospective cohort study in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients across five European centres, assessed 62 objective markers and asked the clinical staff to subjectively estimate the probability of surviving 28 days.
resultsWithin the 961 included patients, we identified 27 single objective predictors for 28-day survival (73.8%) and pooled them into predictive groups. While patient characteristics and treatment models performed poorly, the disease and biomarker models had a moderate discriminative performance for predicting 28-day survival, which improved for predicting 1-year survival. Subjective estimates of nurses (c-statistic [95% CI] 0.74 [0.70-0.78]), junior physicians (0.78 [0.74-0.81]) and attending physicians (0.75 [0.72-0.79]) discriminated survivors from non-survivors at least as good as the combination of all objective predictors (c-statistic: 0.67-0.72). Unexpectedly, subjective estimates were insufficiently calibrated, overestimating death in high-risk patients by about 20% in absolute terms. Combining subjective and objective measures refined discrimination and reduced the overestimation of death.
conclusionsSubjective survival estimates are simple, cheap and similarly discriminative as objective models; however, they overestimate death risking that live-saving therapies are withheld. Therefore, subjective survival estimates of individual patients should be compared with objective tools and interpreted with caution if not agreeing. Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN59376582 , retrospectively registered October 31st 2013.
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.