Observational studyBiomolecules & biomedicine2026
Comparative performance of APACHE II, SOFA, and Charlson Comorbidity Index in sepsis mortality prediction.
Observational study in Biomolecules & biomedicine, 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
Sepsis remains a leading cause of mortality in intensive care units (ICUs) globally; however, the effectiveness of conventional prognostic scoring systems varies across healthcare settings and patient populations. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative discriminative ability of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) in predicting 28-day mortality among critically ill septic patients. We conducted a retrospective observational study involving 392 consecutive adult patients diagnosed with sepsis according to the Sepsis-3 criteria, who were admitted to the ICU of a tertiary pulmonary care center in Serbia from January 2017 to December 2020. APACHE II scores were derived from the worst physiological values recorded within the first 24 hours of ICU admission; SOFA scores reflected the highest total score assessed during the same period; and CCI was calculated based on comorbidities present at admission. Discriminative performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The overall 28-day mortality rate was 51.3%, which increased to 68.1% in patients with septic shock, with pneumonia being the source of infection in 97.4% of cases. APACHE II demonstrated the highest area under the curve (AUC) in the overall sepsis cohort (0.692, 95% CI 0.643-0.747), followed by SOFA (0.682, 95% CI 0.629-0.735) and CCI (0.667, 95% CI 0.613-0.720). In patients with septic shock, SOFA (AUC 0.671, 95% CI 0.561-0.782) and APACHE II (AUC 0.646, 95% CI 0.539-0.754) significantly outperformed CCI (AUC 0.423, 95% CI 0.302-0.543; p=0.006 and p=0.013, respectively), with no statistically significant difference between SOFA and APACHE II (p=0.828). Optimal cut-off values were identified as SOFA ≥8, APACHE II ≥21, and CCI ≥4, with corresponding sensitivities of 59.7%, 67.7%, and 56.2%, respectively. Both APACHE II and SOFA exhibited modest and comparable discriminative abilities for mortality prediction in this high-severity population, while CCI demonstrated limited utility in cases of septic shock. These findings underscore the continued relevance of conventional scoring systems and highlight the necessity for population-specific validation in high-acuity settings.
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.