Observational studyCritical care (London, England)2026
Impact of the updated SOFA-2 score on sepsis diagnosis and prognosis: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.
Observational study 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 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.
- 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Sepsis-3 criteria operationalized organ dysfunction using the original Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA-1) score, which was updated to SOFA-2 in October 2025 to align with modern intensive care unit (ICU) practices. However, the impact of adopting SOFA-2 for sepsis detection under the Sepsis-3 criteria has not yet been evaluated.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective multicenter cohort study using three large-scale ICU databases from the United States and the Netherlands. Adult patients with suspected infection within 72 h of ICU admission were included. Sepsis was independently identified according to Sepsis-3 criteria, utilizing either the SOFA-1 or SOFA-2 score. We systematically compared diagnostic concordance, the timeliness of sepsis detection, clinical outcomes and predictive performance of prognostic models between the two scoring systems. The primary outcome was ICU mortality, while secondary outcomes included hospital mortality and 28-day survival.
resultsThe study cohort comprised 74,615 adult patients with suspected infection. The diagnostic concordance of sepsis between SOFA-1 and SOFA-2 reached 89.62%. However, SOFA-1 and SOFA-2 uniquely identified an additional 3.54% and 6.84% of patients as having sepsis, respectively. The diagnostic discrepancies were primarily attributable to updates in respiratory and renal scoring criteria. ICU mortality was highest among the Concordant Positive group (15.63%). Notably, both discordant groups exhibited substantial mortality (SOFA-1 Only: 8.31%; SOFA-2 Only: 9.23%), both of which were significantly higher than those of patients not classified as having sepsis by either score (6.71%; P = .002 and P = 2.87 × 10
conclusionsSOFA-1 and SOFA-2 showed high concordance in sepsis detection, yet each identified distinct patient subgroups with significant mortality. A transitional strategy utilizing both SOFA-1 and SOFA-2 is advised until updated expert-validated sepsis criteria are established.
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.