ArticleCritical care (London, England)2026
Admission-day SOFA-2 versus SOFA for mortality discrimination: external validation in a large multicenter ICU database.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-level reclassification and discordance between SOFA and SOFA-2: a multicenter ICU study.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Article
- Validation of the updated sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA)-2 score in emergency department septic shock.Journal of intensive care · 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA)-2 score was developed to better reflect contemporary critical care practice by incorporating modern organ support modalities and updated thresholds based on recent data. However, the generalizability of this framework to intensive care unit (ICU) populations beyond the development cohort, particularly across organ support subgroups and major disease categories, remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the external validity of SOFA-2 using the OneICU database, a large Japanese critical care database with comprehensive domain-level data.
methodsAdult ICU stays between February 2013 and August 2025 were included and classified into two cohorts: those with complete SOFA-1 and SOFA-2 component data on the day of ICU admission, and those with complete SOFA-2 data on that day. Discriminatory performance for ICU mortality was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and compared between SOFA-1 and SOFA-2 using the DeLong test. Subgroup analyses were performed by major organ support device use and across disease categories.
resultsAmong 152,883 eligible ICU stays, 67,116 had complete SOFA-1 and SOFA-2 data, and 121,443 had complete SOFA-2 data. SOFA-2 showed a slightly higher AUROC for ICU mortality than SOFA-1 (0.859 vs. 0.853; p < 0.001), although the absolute difference was small. Across subgroups defined by mechanical circulatory support use, SOFA-2 showed higher discrimination than SOFA-1. Discrimination was similar in other device-defined subgroups and in patients readmitted to the ICU. SOFA-2 also demonstrated good discrimination across major diagnostic groups.
conclusionsSOFA-2 showed similar discrimination for ICU mortality compared with SOFA-1 and maintained broadly comparable performance across clinically relevant subgroups, supporting its applicability for early severity assessment in heterogeneous ICU populations.
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.