↓ Skip to main content

Which score should be used for posttraumatic multiple organ failure? - Comparison of the MODS, Denver- and SOFA- Scores

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Which score should be used for posttraumatic multiple organ failure? - Comparison of the MODS, Denver- and SOFA- Scores
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0321-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Fröhlich, Arasch Wafaisade, Anastasios Mansuri, Paola Koenen, Christian Probst, Marc Maegele, Bertil Bouillon, Samir G. Sakka

Abstract

Multiple organ dysfunction and multiple organ failure (MOF) is still a major complication and challenge in the treatment of severely injured patients. The incidence varies decisively in current studies, which complicates the comparability regarding risk factors, treatment recommendations and patients' outcome. Therefore, we analysed how the currently used scoring systems, the MODS, Denver- and SOFA Score, influence the definition and compared the scores' predictive ability. Out of datasets of severely injured patients (ISS ≥ 16, Age ≥ 16) staying more tha 48 h on the ICU, the scores were calculated, respectively. The scores' predictive ability on day three after trauma for resource requiring measurements and patient specific outcomes were compared using receiver-operating characteristics. One hundred seventy-six patients with a mean ISS 28 ± 13 could be included. MODS and SOFA score defined the incidence of MOF consistently (46.5 % vs. 52.3 %), while the Denver score defined MOF in 22.2 %. The MODS outperformed Denver- and SOFA score in predicting mortality (area under the curve/AUC: 0.83 vs. 0.67 vs. 0.72), but was inferior predicting the length of stay (AUC 0.71 vs.0.80 vs.0.82) and a prolonged time on mechanical ventilation (AUC 0.75 vs. 0.81 vs. 0.84). MODS and SOFA score were comparably sensitive and the Denver score more specific in all analyses. All three scores have a comparable ability to predict the outcome in trauma patients including patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Either score could be favored depending weather a higher sensitivity or specificity is targeted. The SOFA score showed the most balanced relation of sensitivity and specificity. The incidence of posttraumatic MOF relies decisively on the score applied. Therefore harmonizing the competing scores and definitions is desirable.

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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 13%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 23 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Engineering 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 24 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 April 2017.
All research outputs
#20,413,129
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#1,220
of 1,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,634
of 312,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#33
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 312,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.