Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42876688›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026

Prognostic discrimination of SOFA-2 vs. SOFA-1 and incremental information from cardiovascular scoring and vasoactive support intensity in patients with sepsis receiving early vasoactive therapy.

Tianci Huang, Mingyuan Pan, Lifan Pan, Peng Liang, Chenglin Mou, Junyu Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tianci Huang *Department of Critical Care Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Mingyuan Pan *Department of Emergency Medicine, Wuming Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Lifan PanDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Peng LiangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Chenglin MouDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Wuming Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Junyu LuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patients with sepsis who require vasoactive support during the first 24 h of intensive care represent a heterogeneous population. It is uncertain whether the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA)-2 score improves mortality discrimination compared with the SOFA-1 score and whether observed circulatory support intensity provides complementary prognostic information. Methods: This multicohort observational study used Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) for a 24-h conditional landmark analysis. Patients alive and still in the ICU beyond 24 h were followed from ICU admission +24 h through ICU day 28 for reconstructed all-cause mortality. We compared SOFA-1 and SOFA-2, evaluated SOFA-2 total and cardiovascular scores, analyzed first-24-h five-agent norepinephrine-equivalent peak burden (norepinephrine, epinephrine, dopamine, phenylephrine, and vasopressin), and internally evaluated an exploratory drug-composition model. Fixed strata were assessed directionally in eICU Collaborative Research Database and an independent-center high-risk stress test cohort with cohort-specific endpoints. Results: The MIMIC-IV 24-h landmark cohort included 11,892 patients and 2,687 post-landmark deaths. SOFA-2 showed no observed discrimination advantage over SOFA-1 (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, AUROC, 0.731 vs. 0.732; difference, -0.0005; 95% confidence interval, -0.0086 to 0.0076; Conclusion: SOFA-2 did not show an observed overall mortality discrimination advantage over SOFA-1 in this population. SOFA-2 total and cardiovascular scores, together with observed vasoactive support intensity, provided complementary prognostic description at 24 h. The ≥12 rule is exploratory, and drug-related associations do not establish causal treatment effects or clinical decision utility.

Indexed as

intensive carenorepinephrine-equivalent burdensepsisseptic shockSOFA-2vasoactive drugs

Identifiers

PMID42876688
PMCPMC13661955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.