Observational studyCritical care explorations2025
Age and Saving Lives in Crisis Standards of Care: A Multicenter Cohort Study of Triage Score Prognostic Accuracy.
Observational study in Critical care explorations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- 72-hour SOFA changes and risk stratification for invasive mechanical ventilation in patients with community-acquired Pneumonia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluation of SOFA-2 Score Performance Across Demographic Subgroups: An External Validation Study Using MIMIC-IV.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
importanceCurrent protocols to triage life support use scores that are biased and inaccurate.
objectivesTo determine if adding age to triage protocols used in disaster scenarios improves the identification of critically ill patients likely to survive. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsObservational cohort study from March 1, 2020, to March 1, 2022, at 22 hospitals in three networks, divided into derivation (12 hospitals) and validation cohorts (ten hospitals). Participants were critically ill adults (90% COVID-19 positive) who would have needed life support during an overwhelming case surge. Life support was defined as vasoactive medications for shock, invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, or oxygen therapy with Pao2/Fio2 less than 200. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was death in the intensive care unit. We fit logistic regression models using a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score with and without age in the derivation cohort and assessed predictive performance in the validation cohort using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) and compared observed and predicted mortality.
resultsThe final analysis contained 7,660 patients with 16,711 life-support episodes. In the validation cohort, the AUC for age plus SOFA was significantly higher than the AUC for SOFA alone (0.66 vs. 0.54; p < 0.001). SOFA score substantially overpredicted mortality (13% predicted vs. 5% observed) for younger patients (< 40 yr) and underestimated mortality (14% predicted vs. 31% observed) for older patients (> 80 yr). In contrast, age plus SOFA had good calibration overall and across age groups. The addition of age improved but did not eliminate differences between observed and predicted mortality across racial-ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Age-inclusive triage better identifies ICU survivors than SOFA alone and is more equitable. Incorporating age into prioritization algorithms could save more lives in a crisis scenario.
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.