ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2024
SOFA in sepsis: with or without GCS.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative prognostic performance of SOFA-1 and SOFA-2 in patients with sepsis at ICU admission.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2026Article
- Combined prognostic value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and serum lactate for 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis-induced pulmonary dysfunction.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Validation of CRownLab Pneumoplex for the Detection ofInternational journal of microbiology · 2026Article
- Development and external validation of a 90-day mortality prediction model for comatose sepsis patients: impact of cerebrovascular disease and dementia.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Development and Internal Validation of a Nomogram Model to Predict Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis Occurrence Risk in ICU Patients with Sepsis.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- [Nomogram and machine learning models for predicting in-hospital mortality in sepsis patients with deep vein thrombosis].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025Article
- The Urea-Creatinine Ratio as Marker of Catabolism Is Affected by Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Update of the sequential organ failure assessment score: current status and challenges?Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Complement activation and humoral immune dysregulation drive progression of pediatric septic shock: a retrospective cohort study.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Establishment and validation of the prediction model based on lymphocyte subsets for acute kidney injury in sepsis patients.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Can We Improve Mortality Prediction in Patients with Sepsis in the Emergency Department?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSepsis is a global public health burden. The sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) is the most commonly used scoring system for diagnosing sepsis and assessing severity. Due to the widespread use of endotracheal intubation and sedative medications in sepsis, the accuracy of the Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) is the lowest in SOFA. We designed this multicenter, cross-sectional study to investigate the predictive efficiency of SOFA with or without GCS on ICU mortality in patients with sepsis.
methodsFirst, 3048 patients with sepsis admitted to Peking Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH) were enrolled in this survey. The data were collected from June 8, 2013 to October 12, 2022. Second, 18,108 patients with sepsis in the eICU database were enrolled. Third, 2397 septic patients with respiratory system ≥ 3 points in SOFA in the eICU database were included. We investigated the predictive efficiency of SOFA with or without GCS on ICU mortality in patients with sepsis in various ICUs of PUMCH, and then we validated the results in the eICU database. MAIN
resultsIn data of ICUs in PUMCH, the predictive efficiency of SOFA without GCS (AUROC [95% CI], 24 h, 0.724 [0.688, 0.760], 48 h, 0.734 [0.699, 0.769], 72 h, 0.748 [0.713, 0.783], 168 h, 0.781 [0.747, 0.815]) was higher than that of SOFA with GCS (AUROC [95% CI], 24 h, 0.708 [0.672, 0.744], 48 h, 0.721 [0.685, 0.757], 72 h, 0.735 [0.700, 0.757], 168 h, 0.770 [0.736, 0.804]) on ICU mortality in patients with sepsis, and the difference was statistically significant (P value, 24 h, 0.001, 48 h, 0.003, 72 h, 0.004, 168 h, 0.005). In septic patients with respiratory system ≥ 3 points in SOFA in the eICU database, although the difference was not statistically significant (P value, 24 h, 0.148, 48 h, 0.178, 72 h, 0.132, 168 h, 0.790), SOFA without GCS (AUROC [95% CI], 24 h, 0.601 [0.576, 0.626], 48 h, 0.625 [0.601, 0.649], 72 h, 0.639 [0.615, 0.663], 168 h, 0.653 [0.629, 0.677]) had a higher predictive efficiency on ICU mortality than SOFA with GCS (AUROC [95% CI], 24 h, 0.591 [0.566, 0.616], 48 h, 0.616 [0.592, 0.640], 72 h, 0.628 [0.604, 0.652], 168 h, 0.651 [0.627, 0.675]).
conclusionsIn severe sepsis, it is realistic and feasible to discontinue the routine GCS for SOFA in patients with a respiratory system ≥ 3 points, and even better predict ICU mortality.
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.