Observational studyCritical care science2026
Contemporary validation of a SAPS 3 customized version in patients admitted to Brazilian and Uruguayan intensive care units: a multicenter cohort study.
Observational study in Critical care science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The customization of general outcome prediction models: a statistical exercise or a necessity?Critical care science · 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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the performance of the standard equation (SAPS 3-SE) and a customized version (SAPS 3-Custom) of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 in a contemporary cohort of Brazilian and Uruguayan intensive care unit patients.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 262,198 adults admitted to 177 intensive care units between 2022 and 2023. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC), and calibration by comparing predicted and observed mortality in calibration curves.
resultsOf patients 70% were medical, and 21% were scheduled for surgery; mean SAPS 3 was 46.6 ± 16.0. Median intensive care unit and hospital stays were 3 (1 - 5) and 8 (4 - 16) days, respectively. Intensive care unit mortality was 10.6% and hospital mortality was 16.4%. Predicted mortality was 19.0% for SAPS 3-SE and 16.6% for SAPS 3-Custom. Both models had excellent discrimination (AUROC = 0.841). SAPS 3-SE overestimated mortality across all risk deciles, whereas SAPS 3-Custom achieved uniform agreement between predicted and observed values. Standardized mortality rates were 0.86 (95%CI 0.85 - 0.87) for SAPS 3-SE and 0.98 (0.98 - 0.99) for SAPS 3-Custom; standardized resource use rates were 0.90 (0.90 - 0.91) and 0.98 (0.97 - 0.98), respectively. At the intensive care unit level, SAPS 3-Custom produced standardized mortality rates (0.95 [0.77 - 1.17]) and standardized resource use rates (0.97 [0.82 - 1.23]) distributions centered around 1.0, unlike SAPS 3-SE, which yielded lower values. Findings were consistent for medical and surgical subgroups.
conclusionIn this large, contemporary cohort, SAPS 3-Custom demonstrated superior calibration and accuracy over SAPS 3-SE, supporting its use for performance evaluation and benchmarking in intensive care units in Brazil and Uruguay.
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.