• Critical care medicine · Aug 1995

    Multicenter Study Comparative Study Clinical Trial

    A comparison of severity of illness scoring systems for intensive care unit patients: results of a multicenter, multinational study. The European/North American Severity Study Group.

    • X Castella, A Artigas, J Bion, and A Kari.
    • Critical Care Department, Manresa General Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
    • Crit. Care Med. 1995 Aug 1;23(8):1327-35.

    ObjectiveTo compare the performance of three severity of illness scoring systems used commonly for intensive care unit (ICU) patients in a large international data set. The systems analyzed were versions II and III of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) system, versions I and II of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS), and versions I and II of the Mortality Probability Model (MPM), computed at admission and after 24 hrs in the ICU.DesignA multicenter, multinational cohort study.SettingOne hundred thirty-seven ICUs in 12 European and North American countries.PatientsDuring a 3-month period, 14,745 patients were consecutively admitted to 137 ICUs enrolled in the study.InterventionsCollection of information necessary to compute the APACHE II and APACHE III scores, SAPS I and SAPS II, and MPM I and MPM II scores. Patients were followed until hospital discharges. Statistical comparison, including indices of calibration (goodness-of-fit) and discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve).Measurements And Main ResultsDespite having acceptable receiver operating characteristic areas, the older versions of the systems analyzed (APACHE II, SAPS, and MPM I computed at admission-MPM I computed after 24 hrs in the ICU) demonstrated poor calibration for the whole database. The new versions of the systems (SAPS II and MPM II) were superior to their older counterparts. This superiority is reflected by larger receiver operating characteristic areas and better fit. The APACHE III system improved its receiver operating characteristic area compared with the APACHE II system, which showed the best fit of the old systems analyzed.ConclusionsThe new versions of the severity systems analyzed (APACHE III, SAPS II, MPM II) perform better than their older counterparts (APACHE II, SAPS I, and MPM I). APACHE II, SAPS II, and MPM II show good discrimination and calibration in this international database.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…