• A Junger, J Engel, M Benson, B Hartmann, R Röhrig, and G Hempelmann.
• Abteilung Anaesthesiologie, Intensivmedizin, Schmerztherapie, Universitätsklinikum Giessen, Germany. Axel.Junger@chiru.med.uni-giessen.de
• Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2002 Oct 1;37(10):591-9.

AbstractThe aim of the second part of this review article was to describe common scoring systems in intensive care, and to point out their possible benefits and limitations. Intensive care medicine multipurpose scoring-systems are currently used to estimate severity of illness, mortality and the amount of treatment required. Costs (only commercial available scores e.g. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] III) and time needed for calculation have to be taken into consideration. Prognostic models of the third generation (APACHE III, Simplified Acute Physiology Score [SAPS] II, Mortality Prediction Model [MPM] II) should be preferred having better prognostic performance compared to scoring systems of prior generations. Although no prospective study exists comparing these three common scoring systems, it appears that all three systems are able to provide useful information to the clinician and researcher. These scoring systems were designed to classify severity of illness or the course of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions and to perform a risk stratification for scientific studies in a standardized way. In quality management and cost control, scoring systems and predictors are used for risk adjustment and evaluation of care performance.

12 keywords...

hide…