ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
SOFA-2 represents meaningful progress toward a more inclusive and equitable global sepsis assessment framework.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
The updated Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA-2) score introduces important improvements in clarity, reproducibility, and global representation. By incorporating explicit scoring rules and data from a limited number of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), it begins to address long-standing concerns regarding variability and applicability. However, substantial imbalances in data representation and health system capacity persist, and the extent to which these advances translate into improved calibration across diverse settings remains to be established. We argue that while SOFA-2 is a meaningful step forward, future sepsis frameworks must integrate context-specific evidence, account for structural constraints, and prioritize equitable participation in model development to ensure globally valid and clinically actionable tools.
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.