ArticleCardiology research2026
Sardjito Cardiovascular Intensive Care Score as an Alternative to Mayo Cardiac Admission Risk Score for Predicting Mortality in Cardiovascular Intensive Care Patients.
Article in Cardiology research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The cardiovascular intensive care unit (CICU) has evolved into a multidisciplinary unit managing critically ill patients with high mortality rates. In 2022, the Sardjito Cardiovascular Intensive Care (SCIENCE) score introduced seven simple parameters assessed within the first 24 h to predict CICU mortality. The Mayo Cardiac Admission Risk Score (M-CARS) is a well-established tool for predicting CICU mortality but requires specialized laboratory tests. This study compared the predictive performance of the SCIENCE score and M-CARS and validated SCIENCE at its development site. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted between February 2022 and September 2024 and included CICU patients at Sardjito Hospital. Outcomes assessed were CICU and in-hospital mortality. Predictive performance was evaluated by accuracy, discrimination, and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test). Results: Over 50% of the initial participants were excluded due to missing M-CARS data (particularly the anion gap), leaving 1,503 eligible patients. M-CARS showed good predictive performance for CICU mortality (accuracy 70.9%, area under the curve (AUC) 0.804, P = 0.685) and in-hospital mortality (accuracy 72.2%, AUC 0.797, P = 0.303). The SCIENCE score also showed good predictive performance for CICU mortality (accuracy 63.7%, AUC 0.775, P = 0.059) and in-hospital mortality (accuracy 65.8%, AUC 0.767, P = 0.352). Acute stroke (hemorrhagic and non-hemorrhagic) was associated with higher CICU and in-hospital mortality (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Both the SCIENCE score and M-CARS provide acceptable predictive performance for CICU patients. However, as M-CARS has limited applicability in some settings, the SCIENCE score may serve as a more practical alternative.
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.