Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37835046›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

Prognostic Performance of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II Scores in Patients with Suspected Infection According to Intensive Care Unit Type.

Sung-Yeon Hwang, In-Kyu Kim, Daun Jeong, Jong-Eun Park, Gun-Tak Lee, Junsang Yoo, Kihwan Choi, Tae-Gun Shin, Kyuseok Kim, Korean Shock Society (KoSS) Investigators

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors.

Sung-Yeon HwangDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.
In-Kyu KimDepartment of Digital Health, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.
Daun JeongDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.
Jong-Eun ParkDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.
Gun-Tak LeeDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.
Junsang YooDepartment of Digital Health, Samsung Advanced Institute for Health Sciences & Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.
Kihwan ChoiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam 13496, Republic of Korea.
Tae-Gun ShinDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.
Kyuseok KimDepartment of Emergency Medicine, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam 13496, Republic of Korea.
Korean Shock Society (KoSS) Investigators

Funding

The Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) HI23C0132
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We investigated the prognostic performance of scoring systems by the intensive care unit (ICU) type. This was a retrospective observational study using data from the Marketplace for Medical Information in the Intensive Care IV database. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We obtained Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III, and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II scores in each ICU type. Prognostic performance was evaluated with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and was compared among ICU types. A total of 29,618 patients were analyzed, and the in-hospital mortality was 12.4%. The overall prognostic performance of APACHE III was significantly higher than those of SOFA and SAPS II (0.807, [95% confidence interval, 0.799-0.814], 0.785 [0.773-0.797], and 0.795 [0.787-0.811], respectively). The prognostic performance of SOFA, APACHE III, and SAPS II scores was significantly different between ICU types. The AUROC ranges of SOFA, APACHE III, and SAPS II were 0.723-0.826, 0.728-0.860, and 0.759-0.819, respectively. The neurosurgical and surgical ICUs had lower prognostic performance than other ICU types. The prognostic performance of scoring systems in patients with suspected infection is significantly different according to ICU type. APACHE III systems have the highest prediction performance. ICU type may be a significant factor in the prognostication.

Indexed as

mortalityorgan dysfunction scoressepsisseverity of illness index

Identifiers

PMID37835046
PMCPMC10573563

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.