International journal of clinical practice · 2021
External validation and comparison of two versions of simplified sequential organ failure assessment scores to predict prognosis of septic patients.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shi Qi-Fang, Xu Ying, Zhang Bing-Yu, Qu Wei, Wang Shu-Yun, Zheng Wen-Long, Sheng Ying
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Evidence shows that simplified SOFA scoring system has better clinical practice.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate and compare the scores acquired with simplified organ dysfunction criteria optimized for electronic health records (eSOFA), and simplified and accurate sequential organ failure assessment (sa-SOFA) for their accuracies in predicting the prognosis of septic patients.
METHODS: This retrospective observational study was conducted at three major academic hospitals. Clinical data from 574 patients diagnosed with sepsis following the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)were retrospectively retrieved and analysed. Scores from the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) were used as reference scores. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was used to assess the performance of eSOFA and sa-SOFA scores in predicting in-hospital mortality.
RESULTS: AUROC analysis demonstrated the predictability of the four scoring systems for sepsis surveillance, listed in descending order as: sa-SOFA, 0.790 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.754-0.822); SOFA, 0.774 (95% CI: 0.738-0.808); eSOFA, 0.729 (95% CI: 0.691-0.765); and qSOFA, 0.618 (95% CI: 0.577-0.658). Moreover, sa-SOFA and SOFA scores (Z = 1.950, P = .051) did not significantly differ from each other in discriminatory power, but the sa-SOFA score had a higher power than eSOFA score (P values < .001).
CONCLUSION: sa-SOFA appeared to have performed better than eSOFA score for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients' sepsis. Further large prospective studies are needed to externally validate.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate and compare the scores acquired with simplified organ dysfunction criteria optimized for electronic health records (eSOFA), and simplified and accurate sequential organ failure assessment (sa-SOFA) for their accuracies in predicting the prognosis of septic patients.
METHODS: This retrospective observational study was conducted at three major academic hospitals. Clinical data from 574 patients diagnosed with sepsis following the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3)were retrospectively retrieved and analysed. Scores from the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) were used as reference scores. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was used to assess the performance of eSOFA and sa-SOFA scores in predicting in-hospital mortality.
RESULTS: AUROC analysis demonstrated the predictability of the four scoring systems for sepsis surveillance, listed in descending order as: sa-SOFA, 0.790 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.754-0.822); SOFA, 0.774 (95% CI: 0.738-0.808); eSOFA, 0.729 (95% CI: 0.691-0.765); and qSOFA, 0.618 (95% CI: 0.577-0.658). Moreover, sa-SOFA and SOFA scores (Z = 1.950, P = .051) did not significantly differ from each other in discriminatory power, but the sa-SOFA score had a higher power than eSOFA score (P values < .001).
CONCLUSION: sa-SOFA appeared to have performed better than eSOFA score for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients' sepsis. Further large prospective studies are needed to externally validate.