ArticleJournal of inflammation research2026
Comparative Prognostic Performance of SOFA2.0 and SOFA for 28-Day Mortality in Patients Developing Sepsis During ECMO Support.
Article in Journal of inflammation 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score is widely used to evaluate organ dysfunction in sepsis, but its performance may be affected in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), where extracorporeal support and related therapies can alter physiologic parameters. An updated version, SOFA2.0, has been proposed to better reflect organ dysfunction in contemporary critical care. This study compared the prognostic performance of SOFA2.0 and traditional SOFA in patients who developed sepsis during ECMO support. Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study including adult patients who developed sepsis during ECMO support between January 2021 and December 2024. SOFA and SOFA2.0 scores were calculated at the time of Sepsis-3 diagnosis using the same clinical dataset. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Predictive performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analysis, multivariable logistic regression, and reclassification metrics including net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). Results: Fifty-three patients were included, with a median age of 54.0 years (IQR, 46.0-61.0), 79.2% male patients, and a 28-day mortality rate of 67.9%. Both SOFA and SOFA2.0 scores were significantly higher in non-survivors than in survivors. SOFA2.0 demonstrated a numerically higher AUC than SOFA (0.765 [95% CI: 0.635-0.896] vs. 0.719 [95% CI: 0.573-0.865]), although the confidence intervals overlapped. Reclassification analysis showed positive continuous NRI (0.728) and IDI (0.071), indicating numerically favorable reclassification performance for SOFA2.0 compared with traditional SOFA. However, SOFA2.0 was not independently associated with mortality after multivariable adjustment. Conclusion: In patients who developed sepsis during ECMO support, SOFA2.0 demonstrated comparable discriminatory performance to traditional SOFA, without clear evidence of superiority. Although SOFA2.0 showed numerically favorable discrimination and reclassification metrics, these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the limited sample size and single-center design.
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.