Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37798561›Full record

ArticleAnnals of intensive care2023

Validity of the total SOFA score in patients ≥ 80 years old acutely admitted to intensive care units: a post-hoc analysis of the VIP2 prospective, international cohort study.

Kamil Polok, Jakub Fronczek, Zbigniew Putowski, Marcelina Czok, Bertrand Guidet, Christian Jung, Dylan de Lange, Susannah Leaver, Rui Moreno, Hans Flatten and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of intensive care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 7 institutions in 7 countries.

Kamil PolokCenter for Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, ul. Wrocławska 1-3, 30 - 901, Kraków, Poland.
Jakub FronczekCenter for Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, ul. Wrocławska 1-3, 30 - 901, Kraków, Poland.
Zbigniew PutowskiCenter for Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, ul. Wrocławska 1-3, 30 - 901, Kraków, Poland.
Marcelina CzokCenter for Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, ul. Wrocławska 1-3, 30 - 901, Kraków, Poland.
Bertrand GuidetSorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, INSERM, UMR_S 1136, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie Et de Santé Publique, Equipe: Epidémiologie Hospitalière Qualité Et Organisation Des Soins, 75012, Paris, France.
Christian JungDepartment of Cardiology, Pulmonology and Vascular Medicine, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, Moorenstraße 5, 40225, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Dylan de LangeDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center, University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Susannah LeaverDepartment of Critical Care, St George's Hospital, London, UK.
Rui MorenoHospital de São José, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Lisboa Central, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas de Lisboa (Nova Médical School), Lisbon, Portugal.
Hans FlattenDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Wojciech SzczeklikCenter for Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, ul. Wrocławska 1-3, 30 - 901, Kraków, Poland. wojciech.szczeklik@uj.edu.pl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1349-1123
Jagiellonian University · PLHaukeland University Hospital · NOHeinrich Heine University Düsseldorf · DEInserm · FRSt George's Hospital · GBUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Beira Interior · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about the performance of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in older critically ill adults. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of physiological disturbances in the six organ systems included in the SOFA score.

methodsWe analysed previously collected data from a prospective cohort study conducted between 2018 and 2019 in 22 countries. Consecutive patients ≥ 80 years old acutely admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) were eligible for inclusion. Patients were followed up for 30 days after admission to the ICU. We used logistic regression to study the association between increasing severity of organ dysfunction and mortality.

resultsThe median SOFA score among 3882 analysed patients was equal to 6 (IQR: 4-9). Mortality was equal to 26.1% (95% CI 24.7-27.5%) in the ICU and 38.7% (95% CI 37.1-40.2%) at day 30. Organ failure defined as a SOFA score ≥ 3 was associated with variable adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for ICU mortality dependant on the organ system affected: respiratory, 1.53 (95% CI 1.29-1.81); cardiovascular 1.69 (95% CI 1.43-2.01); hepatic, 1.74 (95% CI 0.97-3.15); renal, 1.87 (95% CI 1.48-2.35); central nervous system, 2.79 (95% CI 2.34-3.33); coagulation, 2.72 (95% CI 1.66-4.48). Modelling consecutive levels of organ dysfunction resulted in aORs equal to 0.57 (95% CI 0.33-1.00) when patients scored 2 points in the cardiovascular system and 1.01 (0.79-1.30) when the cardiovascular SOFA equalled 3.

conclusionsDifferent components of the SOFA score have different prognostic implications for older critically ill adults. The cardiovascular component of the SOFA score requires revision.

Identifiers

PMID37798561
PMCPMC10555975
OpenAlexW4387363323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.