• Journal of critical care · Jun 2016

    The predictive performance of the SAPS II and SAPS 3 scoring systems: A retrospective analysis.

    • Antonios Katsounas, Ilina Kamacharova, Bartosz Tyczynski, Holger Eggebrecht, Raimund Erbel, Ali Canbay, Guido Gerken, Tienush Rassaf, and Rolf Alexander Jánosi.
    • Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany. Electronic address: antonios.katsounas@uk-essen.de.
    • J Crit Care. 2016 Jun 1; 33: 180-5.

    PurposeThe purpose was to analyze and compare the performance of Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II and SAPS 3 (North Europe Logit) in an intensive care unit (ICU) for internal disorders at a German university hospital.Materials And MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted at a single-center 12-bed ICU sector for Internal Medicine in Essen, Germany, within an 18-month period. Data for adult ICU patients (N = 548) were evaluated. SAPS II and SAPS 3 scores were assessed along with the predicted mortality rates. Discrimination was evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, and calibration was evaluated using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit C-test. The ratios of observed-to-expected deaths (standardized mortality ratio, SMR) were calculated along with the 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).ResultsThe in-hospital mortality rate was 22.6%, which provided an SMR of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.77-0.99) for SAPS II and 0.62 (95% CI, 0.52-0.71) for SAPS 3. Both SAPS II and SAPS 3 exhibited acceptable discrimination, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.89) and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.79), respectively. However, SAPS II demonstrated superior SMR-based discrimination, which was closer to the observed mortality rate, compared with SAPS 3. Calibration curves exhibited similar performance based on the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit C-test results: χ(2) = 7.10 with P = .525 for SAPS II and χ(2) = 3.10 with P = .876 for SAPS 3. Interestingly, both scores overpredicted mortality.ConclusionsIn this study, SAPS 3 overestimated mortality and therefore appears less suitable for risk evaluation in comparison to SAPS II.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      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…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.