ArticleCureus2025
The American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification Versus Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II for Predicting Perioperative Outcomes in Surgical Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Accurate perioperative risk stratification guides the management of surgical patients, yet evidence comparing common scoring systems in India is limited. This study aims to evaluate the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score for predicting perioperative risk, postoperative mortality, and intensive care unit (ICU) use. Methods In this prospective follow‑up study conducted at a tertiary care center in Northeast India, adults aged 18-75 years who underwent emergency or elective major surgery between June 2018 and May 2019 were enrolled. Investigators assigned ASA-PS grades and calculated APACHE II scores preoperatively. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) assessed each score's ability to predict ICU stay > 24 hours and 30‑day all‑cause mortality. Calibration was evaluated with the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness‑of‑fit test. Results Among 152 patients (mean age = 44.7 ± 17 years; 54.6% men), preoperative APACHE II showed better discrimination for prolonged ICU admission (AUC = 0.804) than ASA‑PS (AUC = 0.627). An APACHE II threshold > 7 predicted ICU stay > 24 hours with 75% sensitivity and 74% specificity, whereas an ASA‑PS grade > 2 achieved 69% sensitivity and 50% specificity. For overall mortality, APACHE II and ASA‑PS showed similar performance (AUC = 0.708 vs. 0.737). An APACHE II score > 5 and an ASA‑PS grade > 2 each provided 86% sensitivity, with specificities of 47% and 52%, respectively. Both APACHE II and ASA‑PS showed good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow p > 0.05), indicating close agreement between observed and predicted mortality rates. Conclusions In surgical patients, the APACHE II score provides a more reliable prediction of perioperative risk and prolonged ICU stay than the ASA-PS classification, while both scores offer comparable, moderate accuracy for mortality. Incorporating objective scoring systems, such as APACHE II, into routine assessment may enhance perioperative decision-making and patient outcomes.
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.