Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41638721›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Comparison of the predictive value of APACHE II, SOFA, SAPS II, GCS and GCS-P scores for in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients after craniotomy: a retrospective cohort study in a Chinese tertiary hospital.

Jianfang Zhou, Xu-Ying Luo, Hong-Liang Li, Guang Zhi Shi, Guang-Qiang Chen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06762184 (Comparison of the Predictive Value of APACHE II, SOFA, SAPS II, GCS and GCS-P Scores for In-hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Patients After Craniotomy), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06762184 recruitingnot on this map

Comparison of the Predictive Value of APACHE II, SOFA, SAPS II, GCS and GCS-P Scores for In-hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Patients After Craniotomy

TypeobservationalSponsorBeijing Tiantan HospitalRan2024 to 2025Enrolled1,600ConditionsPost-craniotomy, Critical Illness, Mortality, Severity of Illness Scores
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jianfang ZhouDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6477-4270
Xu-Ying LuoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Hong-Liang LiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Guang Zhi ShiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Guang-Qiang ChenDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China cgqcgq@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different scoring systems, including the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II, the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the Glasgow Coma Scale-Pupils (GCS-P), in predicting in-hospital mortality for critically ill patients after craniotomy.

designThis was a single-centre retrospective diagnostic study.

settingThe study was conducted in three intensive care units (70 beds) of a teaching hospital.

participantsAdult patients who underwent craniotomy and stayed in the ICU for more than 24 hours were included. Pregnant or lactating women and patients enrolled in other clinical studies were excluded. OUTCOME MEASURES: Data on demographics, clinical characteristics and scoring systems (APACHE II, SOFA, SAPS II, GCS and GCS-P) were collected. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the predictive accuracy of each scoring system.

resultsAmong 1717 patients included, the in-hospital mortality rate was 6.8%. SAPS II (AUC = 0.822) and APACHE II (AUC = 0.819) demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy, followed by GCS-P (AUC = 0.812), GCS (AUC = 0.803) and SOFA (AUC = 0.762). SAPS II and APACHE II significantly outperformed SOFA, while no significant differences were observed among SAPS II, APACHE II, GCS and GCS-P. For patients with supratentorial lesions, APACHE II, SAPS II, GCS and GCS-P showed similar predictive accuracy, all superior to SOFA. For infratentorial lesions, SOFA outperformed GCS and GCS-P. Among patients with cerebrovascular diseases, SOFA had the lowest predictive accuracy, while GCS-P outperformed GCS.

conclusionsAPACHE II, SAPS II, GCS and GCS-P demonstrated comparable predictive accuracy for in-hospital mortality in critically ill post-craniotomy patients, with SOFA being less effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06762184.

Indexed as

APACHECraniotomyCritical IllnessGlasgow Coma ScaleHospital MortalityOrgan Dysfunction ScoresSimplified Acute Physiology ScoreAdultAgedChinaEast Asian PeopleFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedAdult intensive & critical careBrain InjuriesMortalityNEUROSURGERY

Identifiers

PMID41638721
PMCPMC12878233

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.