Cited by 7,773Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical OutcomesHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy

A New Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) Based on a European/North American Multicenter Study

Le Gall, Jean-Roger·1993·JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association

Abstract

Objective To develop and validate a new Simplified Acute Physiology Score, the SAPS II, from a large sample of surgical and medical patients, and to provide a method to convert the score to a probability of hospital mortality. Design and setting The SAPS II and the probability of hospital mortality were developed and validated using data from consecutive admissions to 137 adult medical and/or surgical intensive care units in 12 countries. Patients The 13,152 patients were randomly divided into developmental (65%) and validation (35%) samples. Patients younger than 18 years, burn patients, coronary care patients, and cardiac surgery patients were excluded. Outcome measure Vital status at hospital discharge. Results The SAPS II includes only 17 variables: 12 physiology variables, age, type of admission (scheduled surgical, unscheduled surgical, or medical), and three underlying disease variables (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, metastatic cancer, and hematologic malignancy). Goodness-of-fit tests indicated that the model performed well in the developmental sample and validated well in an independent sample of patients (P = .883 and P = .104 in the developmental and validation samples, respectively). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.88 in the developmental sample and 0.86 in the validation sample. Conclusion The SAPS II, based on a large international sample of patients, provides an estimate of the risk of death without having to specify a pri…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1993.03510240069035

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The disruption of the post-conversion period by the COVID-19 pandemic could have introduced a bias related to populations studied, albeit SAPS were similar in both periods.

    “post-conversion period by the COVID-19 pandemic could have introduced a bias related to populations studied, albeit simplified acute physiology scores (SAPS) [28] were similar in both periods.”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 21 · Cited by 7,773

Authors
Le Gall, J.-R.
Venue
JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Published
1993-12-22
Volume
270
Issue
24
Pages
2957
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2128349740
Cited by
7,773
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 236 · 2025: 254 · 2024: 334 · 2023: 358 · 2022: 410 · 2021: 513 · 2020: 397 · 2019: 282 · 2018: 302 · 2017: 294 · 2016: 279 · 2015: 315 · 2014: 284 · 2013: 299 · 2012: 306
FWCI
30.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Keywords
SAPS II, mortality risk, intensive care unit patients, mortality prediction, prognostic score validation, physiological parameters, underlying disease, hospital discharge outcomes, international multicenter study
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Probability, Severity of Illness Index, Hospital Mortality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review