↓ Skip to main content

Determinants of the calibration of SAPS II and SAPS 3 mortality scores in intensive care: a European multicenter study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Determinants of the calibration of SAPS II and SAPS 3 mortality scores in intensive care: a European multicenter study
Published in
Critical Care, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1673-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antoine Poncet, Thomas V. Perneger, Paolo Merlani, Maurizia Capuzzo, Christophe Combescure

Abstract

The aim of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II and SAPS 3 is to predict the mortality of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Previous studies have suggested that the calibration of these scores may vary across countries, centers, and/or characteristics of patients. In the present study, we aimed to assess determinants of the calibration of these scores. We assessed the calibration of the SAPS II and SAPS 3 scores among 5266 patients admitted to ICUs during a 4-week period at 120 centers in 17 European countries. We obtained calibration curves, Brier scores, and standardized mortality ratios. Points attributed to SAPS items were reevaluated and compared with those of the original scores. Finally, we tested associations between the calibration and center characteristics. The mortality was overestimated by both scores: The standardized mortality ratios were 0.75 (95% CI 0.71-0.79) for the SAPS II score and 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.96) for the SAPS 3 score. This overestimation was partially explained by changes in associations between some items of the scores and mortality, especially the heart rate, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and diagnosis of AIDS for SAPS II. The calibration of both scores was better in countries with low health expenditures. The between-center variability in calibration curves was much greater than expected by chance. Both scores overestimate current mortality among European ICU patients. The magnitude of the miscalibration of SAPS II and SAPS 3 scores depends not only on patient characteristics but also on center characteristics. Furthermore, much between-center variability in calibration remains unexplained by these factors. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01422070 . Registered 19 August 2011.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 18 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Engineering 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 19 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 May 2017.
All research outputs
#13,173,409
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,431
of 6,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,250
of 310,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#57
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,192 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 310,031 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.