↓ Skip to main content

The use of maximum SOFA score to quantify organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care. Results of a prospective, multicentre study

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, July 1999
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
734 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
312 Mendeley
Title
The use of maximum SOFA score to quantify organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care. Results of a prospective, multicentre study
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, July 1999
DOI 10.1007/s001340050931
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Moreno, J.-L. Vincent, R. Matos, A. Mendonça, F. Cantraine, L. Thijs, J. Takala, C. Sprung, M. Antonelli, H. Bruining, S. Willatts, on behalf of the working group on sepsisrelated problems of

Abstract

To evaluate the performance of total maximum sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and a derived measure, delta SOFA (total maximum SOFA score minus admission total SOFA) as a descriptor of multiple organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care. Prospective, multicentre and multinational study. Forty intensive care units (ICUs) from Australia, Europe, North and South America. Data on 1,449 patients, evaluated at admission and then consecutively every 24 h until ICU discharge (11,417 records) during May 1995. Excluded from data collection were all patients with a length of stay in the ICU less than 2 days following uncomplicated scheduled surgery. Survival status at ICU discharge. The collection of raw data necessary for the computation of a SOFA score on admission and then every 24 h, and basic demographic and clinical statistics. Mean total maximum SOFA score presented a very good correlation to ICU outcome, with mortality rates ranging from 3.2% in patients without organ failure to 91.3% in patients with failure of all the six organs analysed. A maximum score was reached 1.1 +/- 0.2 days after admission for all the organ systems analysed. The total maximum SOFA score presented an area under the ROC curve of 0.847 (SE 0.012), which was significantly higher than any of its individual components. The cardiovascular score (odds ratio 1.68) was associated with the highest relative contribution to outcome. No independent contribution could be demonstrated for the hepatic score. No significant interactions were found. Principal components analysis demonstrated the existence of a two-factor structure that became clearer when analysis was limited to the presence or absence of organ failure (SOFA score > or = 3 points) during the ICU stay. The first factor comprises respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological systems and the second coagulation, hepatic and renal systems. Delta SOFA also presented a good correlation to outcome. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.742 (SE 0.017) for delta SOFA, lower than the total maximum SOFA score or admission total SOFA score. The impact of delta SOFA on prognosis remained significant after correction for admission total SOFA. The results show that total maximum SOFA score and delta SOFA can be used to quantify the degree of dysfunction/failure already present on ICU admission, the degree of dysfunction/failure that appears during the ICU stay and the cumulative insult suffered by the patient. These properties make it a good instrument to be used in the evaluation of organ dysfunction/failure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 312 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 298 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 13%
Student > Postgraduate 34 11%
Other 30 10%
Researcher 26 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 8%
Other 87 28%
Unknown 72 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 170 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Engineering 7 2%
Other 30 10%
Unknown 76 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 December 2019.
All research outputs
#3,722,734
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#2,236
of 5,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,910
of 35,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#2
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 35,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.