Key result
SAPS II and APACHE II scoring systems demonstrated similar predictive value for 1-month mortality in critically ill patients (AUC 0.75 vs 0.72; p=0.24).
Why the study?
Does the SAPS II scoring system predict 1-month mortality better than the APACHE II scoring system in critically ill patients?
Cross-Sectional (n=82)
Does the SAPS II scoring system predict 1-month mortality better than the APACHE II scoring system in critically ill patients?
Effect estimate: AUC (95% CI 0.64-0.86 for SAPS II; 0.60-0.83 for APACHE II)
Absolute Event Rate: 0.75% vs 0.72%
p-value: p=0.24
APACHE II and SAPS II scoring systems have similar and acceptable discriminatory power for predicting 1-month mortality in critically ill patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Both scores show similar discrimination for short-term mortality; leaves open whether either outperforms in specific subgroups or with recalibration.
Aminiahidashti et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in Critically ill patients (n=82). SAPS II score vs. APACHE II score was evaluated on 1-month mortality (AUC, 95% CI 0.64-0.86 for SAPS II; 0.60-0.83 for APACHE II, p=0.24). SAPS II and APACHE II scoring systems demonstrated similar predictive value for 1-month mortality in critically ill patients (AUC 0.75 vs 0.72; p=0.24).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: