↓ Skip to main content

SOFA and mortality endpoints in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, February 2017
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 (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
164 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
229 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
SOFA and mortality endpoints in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis
Published in
Critical Care, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1609-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harm-Jan de Grooth, Irma L. Geenen, Armand R. Girbes, Jean-Louis Vincent, Jean-Jacques Parienti, Heleen M. Oudemans-van Straaten

Abstract

The sequential organ failure assessment score (SOFA) is increasingly used as an endpoint in intensive care randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Although serially measured SOFA is independently associated with mortality in observational cohorts, the association between treatment effects on SOFA vs. effects on mortality has not yet been quantified in RCTs. The aim of this study was to quantify the relationship between SOFA and mortality in RCTs and to identify which SOFA derivative best reflects between-group mortality differences. The review protocol was prospectively registered (Prospero CRD42016034014). We performed a literature search (up to May 1, 2016) for RCTs reporting both SOFA and mortality, and analyzed between-group differences in these outcomes. Treatment effects on SOFA and mortality were calculated as the between-group SOFA standardized difference and log odds ratio (OR), respectively. We used random-effects meta-regression to (1) quantify the linear relationship between RCT treatment effects on mortality (logOR) and SOFA (i.e. responsiveness) and (2) quantify residual heterogeneity (i.e. consistency, expressed as I (2)). Of 110 eligible RCTs, 87 qualified for analysis. Using all RCTs, SOFA was significantly associated with mortality (slope = 0.49 (95% CI 0.17; 0.82), p = 0.006, I (2) = 5%); the overall mortality effect explained by SOFA score (R (2)) was 9%. Fifty-eight RCTs used Fixed-day SOFA as an endpoint (i.e. the score on a fixed day after randomization), 25 studies used Delta SOFA as an endpoint (i.e. the trajectory from baseline score) and 15 studies used other SOFA derivatives as an endpoint. Fixed-day SOFA was not significantly associated with mortality (slope = 0.35 (95% CI -0.04; 0.75), p = 0.08, I (2) = 12%) and explained 3% of the overall mortality effect (R (2)). Delta SOFA was significantly associated with mortality (slope = 0.70 (95% CI 0.26; 1.14), p = 0.004, I (2) = 0%) and explained 32% of the overall mortality effect (R (2)). Treatment effects on Delta SOFA appear to be reliably and consistently associated with mortality in RCTs. Fixed-day SOFA was the most frequently reported outcome among the reviewed RCTs, but was not significantly associated with mortality. Based on this study, we recommend using Delta SOFA rather than Fixed-day SOFA as an endpoint in future RCTs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users 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 229 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 229 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Master 21 9%
Other 20 9%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Other 42 18%
Unknown 85 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 3%
Engineering 6 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 1%
Other 21 9%
Unknown 92 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 23 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,503,579
of 25,872,466 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,164
of 6,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,299
of 327,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#35
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,872,466 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,639 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 327,478 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.