ArticleCancer management and research2023
A New Scoring System for Predicting Mortality in Hematological Malignancies with Sepsis: A Derivation and Validation Study.
Article in Cancer management and research, 2023. 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.
- Optimizing Clinical Indicators in Hematologic Malignancies and Sepsis Using ddPCR: A Retrospective Study.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Article
- [Clinical characteristics and prognostic evaluation of patients with hematological disease and sepsis in the Hematological intensive care unit].Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi · 2025Article
- Navigating Sepsis: New Prognostic Tools [Letter].Cancer management and research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to derive and validate a prognostic scoring system to identify patients with hematological malignancies (HMs) and sepsis who have a high mortality rate. Methods: Cohorts for derivation and validation were created from all data. Using univariate and multivariate analysis, the independent variables connected to 28-day mortality in the derivation cohort were found. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to compare the predictive power and determine their cutoff points. These risk variables were given a score weighted by risk prediction function, and a new scoring system was also developed. The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) and sensitivity and specificity for mortality of the risk category of the new scoring system were compared with Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. Results: 90 (45.22%) of the 199 patients passed away within 28 days. Ninety-nine patients made up the derivation cohort, with 47 (47.47%) fatalities. Ages in the non-survival group were higher (61.47 ± 14.53 vs 55.13 ± 15.66) than in the survival group. As independent predictors of death, multivariable analysis identified SOFA score (OR 1.442, 95% CI 1.035, 2.009), age (OR 1.242, 95% CI 1.026, 1.503), and prothrombin time (PT) (OR 1.213, 95% CI 1.030, 1.430). The AUROC with 95% CI of the new scoring system and its sensitivity and specificity to mortality were virtually all superior to SOFA score in both derivation and validation cohorts: AUROC (0.757 vs 0.716), Sensitivity (75 vs 67.3%), and Specificity (68.1% vs 63.8%) are the Derivation cohort; Validation cohort: Sensitivity (91.2% vs 84.2%), AUROC (0.792 vs 0.733), and Specificity (58.1% vs 58.1%). The model was correctly calibrated, according to the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Conclusion: The new scoring system was more accurate in predicting 28-day mortality among patients with HMs and sepsis than the SOFA score.
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.