ArticleJournal of intensive care2026
Validation of the updated sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA)-2 score in emergency department septic shock.
Article in Journal of intensive care, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe original Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA-1) score is widely used to quantify organ dysfunction in critically ill patients, including those with septic shock. A recently updated, data-driven SOFA score (SOFA-2) revises component thresholds and incorporates contemporary organ support modalities. While SOFA-2 has been validated in intensive care unit populations, its performance in the emergency department (ED), particularly among patients with septic shock, is uncertain. We therefore sought to validate SOFA-2 in ED patients with septic shock.
methodsIn this observational study, we analyzed two prospective septic shock registries. Adult ED patients with septic shock were included. SOFA-1 and SOFA-2 scores were calculated using the worst physiologic and laboratory values recorded within the first 24 h in the ED. We compared score distributions and examined mortality across score ranges. Discrimination for in-hospital, 28-day, and 90-day mortality was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Calibration for in-hospital mortality was assessed using the calibration curve and Brier scores. Reclassification performance was evaluated using continuous net reclassification improvement (NRI) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI).
resultsThe study included 2669 patients in Cohort A and 1443 patients in Cohort B. SOFA-1 and SOFA-2 score distributions differed significantly. Mortality generally increased with higher SOFA-1 and SOFA-2 scores across all outcomes. SOFA-2 demonstrated significantly higher AUROCs than SOFA-1 for in-hospital, 28-day, and 90-day mortality in both cohorts (Cohort A: 0.734 vs. 0.702, 0.719 vs. 0.694, and 0.680 vs. 0.658; Cohort B: 0.719 vs. 0.671, 0.737 vs. 0.689, and 0.711 vs. 0.666; all p < 0.001). SOFA-2 showed generally closer agreement between predicted and observed in-hospital mortality and lower Brier scores. Continuous NRI (0.276-0.635) and IDI (0.024-0.062) also favored SOFA-2 across all mortality outcomes (all p < 0.001). In adjusted analyses, each 1-point increase in SOFA-2 was independently associated with higher mortality. Sensitivity analyses and pooled analyses showed consistent findings.
conclusionAmong ED patients with septic shock, SOFA-2 showed modestly improved discrimination, closer agreement between predicted and observed in-hospital mortality with lower overall prediction error, and more favorable continuous reclassification metrics compared with SOFA-1. These findings support the external validation of SOFA-2 in this population and warrant further evaluation in diverse ED 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.