ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Prognostic value of the obstetric specific scoring systems and four years' experience of a tertiary center.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObstetric sepsis is a significant and preventable cause of maternal mortality. The obstetric modified SOFA (omSOFA) score was created to diagnose sepsis in this population, and the sepsis in obstetrics score (SOS) was developed to predict the need for ICU care. This study investigated the prognostic value of these scores in patients treated in the ICU for obstetric sepsis, analyzed the patients' characteristics, and examined the perinatal outcomes associated with sepsis.
methodsThe study was retrospectively designed, and patients hospitalized in the ICU due to maternal sepsis were evaluated. These patients were divided into two groups based on the length of ICU stay. An ICU stay exceeding 72 h is considered a prolonged stay. The data, including demographics, laboratory results and obstetric outcomes, were compared between the groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to investigate the performance of omSOFA and SOS scores in predicting prolonged ICU stay and septic shock.
resultsThe study included 25 women with maternal sepsis. Sepsis developed during pregnancy in 40% of patients, after cesarean section in 28%, after abortion in 20%, and after vaginal delivery in 12%. Septic shock developed in 12% (n = 3) of patients during ICU hospitalization. SOS showed better performance in predicting the need for ICU longer than 72 h (cut-off: 3, AUC:0.865, CI:0.721-1.000, sensitivity:75%, specificity:100% PPV:100% NPV:92.7% p = 0.003). At the same time, omSOFA performed better in predicting septic shock (cut-off: 5, AUC:0.985, CI: 0.941-1.000, sensitivity:100% specificity:95%, PPV:73.2%, NPV:100% p = 0.007). DISCUSSION: Considering that prolonged stay in the ICU and development of septic shock are important determinants of morbidity and mortality, SOS and omSOFA scores could serve as valuable prognostic tools in obstetric sepsis cases.
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.