ArticleAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2023
Reporting SOFA in research: we should always present each of the SOFA subscores.
Article in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Testosterone and androgen receptor pathway modulation in sepsis: immunometabolic mechanisms and therapeutic implications - a scoping review.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 8 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score is the sum of 6 components, each representing one organ system with dysfunction classified on a 4-point scale. In research, usually by default, the total SOFA score is taken into account, but it may not reflect the severity of the condition of the individual organs. Often, these values are expected to predict mortality. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this study, we reanalysed 2 cohorts of critically ill elderly patients to explore the distribution of SOFA subscores and to assess the between-group differences. Both cohorts were adjusted to maintain similarity in terms of age and the primary cause of admission (respiratory cause).
resultsIn total, 910 (non-COVID-19 cohort) and 551 patients (COVID-19 cohort) were included in the analysis. Both cohorts were similar in terms of the total SOFA score (median 5 vs. 5 points); however, the groups differed significantly in 4/6 SOFA subscores (respiratory, neurological, cardiovascular, and coagulation subscores). Moreover, the cohorts had different fractions of organ failures (defined as a SOFA subscore ≥ 3).
conclusionsThis analysis revealed significant differences in SOFA subscores between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 respiratory cohorts, highlighting the importance of considering individual organ dysfunction rather than relying solely on the total SOFA score when reporting organ dysfunction in clinical research.
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.