Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,532

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score: A reliable descriptor of a complex clinical outcome

Marshall, John C., Cook, Deborah J., Christou, Nicolas V., Bernard, Gordon R., Sprung, Charles L., Sibbald, William J.·1995·Critical Care Medicine
DOI 10.1097/00003246-199510000-00007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop an objective scale to measure the severity of the multiple organ dysfunction syndrome as an outcome in critical illness. DESIGN: Systematic literature review; prospective cohort study. SETTING: Surgical intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary-level teaching hospital. PATIENTS: All patients (n = 692) admitted for > 24 hrs between May 1988 and March 1990. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Computerized database review of MEDLINE identified clinical studies of multiple organ failure that were published between 1969 and 1993. Variables from these studies were evaluated for construct and content validity to identify optimal descriptors of organ dysfunction. Clinical and laboratory data were collected daily to evaluate the performance of these variables individually and in aggregate as an organ dysfunction score. Seven systems defined the multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in more than half of the 30 published reports reviewed. Descriptors meeting criteria for construct and content validity could be identified for five of these seven systems: a) the respiratory system (Po2/FIO2 ratio); b) the renal system (serum creatinine concentration); c) the hepatic system (serum bilirubin concentration); d) the hematologic system (platelet count); and e) the central nervous system (Glasgow Coma Scale). In the absence of an adequate descriptor of cardiovascular dysfunction, we developed a new variable, the pressure-adjusted heart rate, which is calculated as the product of the heart rate and the ratio of central venous pressure to mean arterial pressure. These candidate descriptors of organ dysfunction were then evaluated for criterion validity (ICU mortality rate) using the clinical database. From the first half of the database (the development set), intervals for the most abnormal value of each variable were constructed on a scale from 0 to 4 so that a value of 0 represented essentially normal function and was associated with an ICU mortality rate of < 5%, whereas a value of 4 represented marked functional derangement and an ICU mortality rate of > or = 50%. These intervals were then tested on the second half of the data set (the validation set). Maximal scores for each variable were summed to yield a Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (maximum of 24). This score correlated in a graded fashion with the ICU mortality rate, both when applied on the first day of ICU admission as a prognostic indicator and when calculated over the ICU stay as an outcome measure. For the latter, ICU mortality was approximately 25% at 9 to 12 points, 50% at 13 to 16 points, 75% at 17 to 20 points, and 100% at levels of > 20 points. The score showed excellent discrimination, as reflected in areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.936 in the development set and 0.928 in the validation set. The incremental increase in scores over the course of the ICU stay (calculated as the difference between maximal scores and those scores obtained on the first day [i.e., the delta Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score]) also demonstrated a strong correlation with the ICU mortality rate. In a logistic regression model, this incremental increase in scores accounted for more of the explanatory power than admission severity indices. CONCLUSIONS: This multiple organ dysfunction score, constructed using simple physiologic measures of dysfunction in six organ systems, mirrors organ dysfunction as the intensivist sees it and correlates strongly with the ultimate risk of ICU mortality and hospital mortality. The variable, delta Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score, reflects organ dysfunction developing during the ICU stay, which therefore is potentially amenable to therapeutic manipulation. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00003246-199510000-00007

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Baue, 1975, Arch Surg, 110, 779, 10.1001/archsurg.1975.01360130011001 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Carrico, 1986, Arch Surg, 121, 196, 10.1001/archsurg.1986.01400020082010 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Tran, 1990, Crit Care Med, 18, 474, 10.1097/00003246-199005000-00002 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Deitch, 1992, Ann Surg, 216, 117, 10.1097/00000658-199208000-00002 · DOI · Paper page
  5. DeCamp, 1988, JAMA, 260, 530, 10.1001/jama.1988.03410040102037 · DOI
  6. Beal, 1994, JAMA, 271, 226, 10.1001/jama.1994.03510270072043 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Fry, 1980, Arch Surg, 115, 136, 10.1001/archsurg.1980.01380020006003 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Bell, 1983, Ann Intern Med, 99, 293, 10.7326/0003-4819-99-3-293 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Knaus, 1985, Ann Surg, 202, 685, 10.1097/00000658-198512000-00004 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Goris, 1985, Arch Surg, 120, 1109, 10.1001/archsurg.1985.01390340007001 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Kollef, 1994, Crit Care Clin, 10, 1, 10.1016/S0749-0704(18)30141-6 · DOI
  12. Knaus, 1993, JAMA, 270, 1233, 10.1001/jama.1993.03510100083038 · DOI
  13. Feinstein, 1986, Ann Intern Med, 105, 413, 10.7326/0003-4819-105-3-413 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Kirshner, 1985, Journal of Chronic Diseases, 38, 27, 10.1016/0021-9681(85)90005-0 · DOI · Paper page
  15. MacKenzie, 1986, BMJ, 292, 40, 10.1136/bmj.292.6512.40 · DOI
  16. Guyatt, 1989, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 140, 1441
  17. Knaus, 1985, Crit Care Med, 13, 818, 10.1097/00003246-198510000-00009 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Zweig, 1993, Clin Chem, 39, 561, 10.1093/clinchem/39.4.561 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Parrillo, 1990, Ann Intern Med, 113, 227, 10.7326/0003-4819-113-3-227 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Vincent, 1990, Crit Care Med, 18, S70, 10.1097/00003246-199007000-00001 · DOI
  21. Knaus, 1991, Chest, 100, 1619, 10.1378/chest.100.6.1619 · DOI · Paper page
  22. LeGall, 1993, JAMA, 270, 2957, 10.1001/jama.1993.03510240069035 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Lemeshow, 1993, JAMA, 270, 2478, 10.1001/jama.1993.03510200084037 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Spitzer, 1981, Journal of Chronic Diseases, 34, 585, 10.1016/0021-9681(81)90058-8 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Guyatt, 1989, Gastroenterology, 96, 804, 10.1016/S0016-5085(89)80080-0 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Haley, 1985, Am J Epidemiol, 121, 206, 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113991 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Pachter, 1989, Crit Care Med, 17, 221, 10.1097/00003246-198903000-00004 · DOI
  28. Casey, 1993, Ann Intern Med, 119, 771, 10.7326/0003-4819-119-8-199310150-00001 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Suter, 1994, Intensive Care Med, 20, 390, 10.1007/BF01720917 · DOI
  30. Sibbald, 1995, Crit Care Med, 23, 394, 10.1097/00003246-199502000-00027 · DOI
  31. Petros, 1995, Lancet, 345, 369, 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)90347-X · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Marshall, J. C., Cook, D. J., Christou, N. V., Bernard, G. R., Sprung, C. L., & Sibbald, W. J.
Venue
Critical Care Medicine
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1995-10
Volume
23
Issue
10
Pages
1638-1652
ISSN
0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00003246-199510000-00007
OpenAlex
W2085208748
Cited by
2,532
References
3
FWCI
34.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.