ArticleMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2026
[Experiences from SARS-CoV-2 pandemic at UKSH Lübeck].
Article in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesTransfer of critically ill, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive patients to a tertiary care center in combination with mortality prediction using the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) score has not been investigated in detail so far, in Germany. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis of SARS-CoV-2 patients receiving intensive care unit (ICU) treatment at a tertiary care center between 1 March 2020 and 31 December 2021 was performed. Patients directly admitted through the emergency room (PA) and patients admitted later-on from hospitals with lower level of care (SA) were compared.
resultsIn all, 165 SARS-CoV-2 patients with a SAPS II score received intensive care during the period described. SA patients were significantly younger (SA 62.2 years [IQR 51.9-72.4] vs. PA 70.8 years [IQR 58.3-79.9], p = 0.002), were ventilated longer (SA 16.5 days [IQR 7-31] vs. PA 7 days [IQR 4-11], p < 0.001) but had the same hospital mortality (SA 53.3% vs. PA 45.7%, p = 0.41). Predicted mortality through SAPS II score underestimated true mortality in both patient collectives (SA 15.2% [IQR 7.9-26.6] vs. PA 19.6% [IQR 9.2-34.7], p = 0.17).
conclusionThe prognostic value of SAPS II is limited for patients suffering from SARS-CoV‑2. Interhospital transfer of critically ill patients seems reasonable since mortality is not different between patients primarily admitted to a tertiary center and patients admitted later-on during disease course.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41528394What 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.