Cited by 2,862Sepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients

Serial Evaluation of the SOFA Score to Predict Outcome in Critically Ill Patients

Ferreira, Flavio Lopes·2001·JAMA

Abstract

Context Evaluation of trends in organ dysfunction in critically ill patients may help predict outcome. Objective To determine the usefulness of repeated measurement the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score for prediction of mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Design Prospective, observational cohort study conducted from April 1 to July 31, 1999. Setting A 31-bed medicosurgical ICU at a university hospital in Belgium. Patients Three hundred fifty-two consecutive patients (mean age, 59 years) admitted to the ICU for more than 24 hours for whom the SOFA score was calculated on admission and every 48 hours until discharge. Main outcome measures Initial SOFA score (0-24), Delta-SOFA scores (differences between subsequent scores), and the highest and mean SOFA scores obtained during the ICU stay and their correlations with mortality. Results The initial, highest, and mean SOFA scores correlated well with mortality. Initial and highest scores of more than 11 or mean scores of more than 5 corresponded to mortality of more than 80%. The predictive value of the mean score was independent of the length of ICU stay. In univariate analysis, mean and highest SOFA scores had the strongest correlation with mortality, followed by Delta-SOFA and initial SOFA scores. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was largest for highest scores (0.90; SE, 0.02; P 90%), a decreasing score during the first 48 hours was associated with a mortality rate of less t…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.286.14.1754

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Traditional severity scoring systems typically focus on mortality prediction rather than dynamic changes in patient recovery trajectories.

    “Furthermore, these scoring systems typically focus on mortality prediction rather than the dynamic changes in patient recovery trajectories7,8.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ferreira, F. L.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2001-10-10
Volume
286
Issue
14
Pages
1754
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W1974873560
Cited by
2,862
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 124 · 2025: 180 · 2024: 195 · 2023: 199 · 2022: 214 · 2021: 253 · 2020: 238 · 2019: 215 · 2018: 134 · 2017: 121 · 2016: 106 · 2015: 123 · 2014: 114 · 2013: 95 · 2012: 81
FWCI
15.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
Keywords
SOFA score, organ dysfunction, mortality prediction, intensive care unit patients, critically ill patients, prognostic scoring, ICU length of stay, mortality risk stratification
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Organ Failure, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Severity of Illness Index, Survival Analysis, Critical Illness

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