在研究中报告 SOFA:我们应始终介绍 SOFA 的每个子分数。

IF 1.6 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anaesthesiology intensive therapy Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5114/ait.2023.134188
Zbigniew Putowski, Marcelina Czok, Kamil Polok, Bertrand Guidet, Christian Jung, Raphael Romano Bruno, Dylan de Lange, Susannah Leaver, Rui Moreno, Bernhard Wernly, Hans Flaatten, Wojciech Szczeklik
{"title":"在研究中报告 SOFA:我们应始终介绍 SOFA 的每个子分数。","authors":"Zbigniew Putowski, Marcelina Czok, Kamil Polok, Bertrand Guidet, Christian Jung, Raphael Romano Bruno, Dylan de Lange, Susannah Leaver, Rui Moreno, Bernhard Wernly, Hans Flaatten, Wojciech Szczeklik","doi":"10.5114/ait.2023.134188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score is the sum of 6 components, each representing one organ system with dysfunction classified on a 4-point scale. In research, usually by default, the total SOFA score is taken into account, but it may not reflect the severity of the condition of the individual organs. Often, these values are expected to predict mortality.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>In this study, we reanalysed 2 cohorts of critically ill elderly patients to explore the distribution of SOFA subscores and to assess the between-group differences. Both cohorts were adjusted to maintain similarity in terms of age and the primary cause of admission (respiratory cause).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 910 (non-COVID-19 cohort) and 551 patients (COVID-19 cohort) were included in the analysis. Both cohorts were similar in terms of the total SOFA score (median 5 vs. 5 points); however, the groups differed significantly in 4/6 SOFA subscores (respiratory, neurological, cardiovascular, and coagulation subscores). Moreover, the cohorts had different fractions of organ failures (defined as a SOFA subscore ≥ 3).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This analysis revealed significant differences in SOFA subscores between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 respiratory cohorts, highlighting the importance of considering individual organ dysfunction rather than relying solely on the total SOFA score when reporting organ dysfunction in clinical research.</p>","PeriodicalId":7750,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10801450/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reporting SOFA in research: we should always present each of the SOFA subscores.\",\"authors\":\"Zbigniew Putowski, Marcelina Czok, Kamil Polok, Bertrand Guidet, Christian Jung, Raphael Romano Bruno, Dylan de Lange, Susannah Leaver, Rui Moreno, Bernhard Wernly, Hans Flaatten, Wojciech Szczeklik\",\"doi\":\"10.5114/ait.2023.134188\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score is the sum of 6 components, each representing one organ system with dysfunction classified on a 4-point scale. In research, usually by default, the total SOFA score is taken into account, but it may not reflect the severity of the condition of the individual organs. Often, these values are expected to predict mortality.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>In this study, we reanalysed 2 cohorts of critically ill elderly patients to explore the distribution of SOFA subscores and to assess the between-group differences. Both cohorts were adjusted to maintain similarity in terms of age and the primary cause of admission (respiratory cause).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 910 (non-COVID-19 cohort) and 551 patients (COVID-19 cohort) were included in the analysis. Both cohorts were similar in terms of the total SOFA score (median 5 vs. 5 points); however, the groups differed significantly in 4/6 SOFA subscores (respiratory, neurological, cardiovascular, and coagulation subscores). Moreover, the cohorts had different fractions of organ failures (defined as a SOFA subscore ≥ 3).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This analysis revealed significant differences in SOFA subscores between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 respiratory cohorts, highlighting the importance of considering individual organ dysfunction rather than relying solely on the total SOFA score when reporting organ dysfunction in clinical research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7750,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10801450/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2023.134188\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2023.134188","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介序贯器官功能衰竭评估(SOFA)评分是 6 个组成部分的总和,每个组成部分代表一个器官系统,其功能障碍按 4 分制进行分类。在研究中,通常默认会考虑 SOFA 总分,但它可能无法反映各个器官的严重程度。通常,这些数值有望预测死亡率:在这项研究中,我们重新分析了两组老年重症患者,以探讨 SOFA 子分数的分布情况并评估组间差异。这两组患者的年龄和主要入院原因(呼吸系统原因)都经过调整,以保持相似性:共有 910 名患者(非 COVID-19 组群)和 551 名患者(COVID-19 组群)纳入分析。两组患者的 SOFA 总分相似(中位数为 5 分 vs. 5 分),但在 4/6 个 SOFA 子分数(呼吸、神经、心血管和凝血子分数)上存在显著差异。此外,两组患者器官功能衰竭的比例也不同(定义为 SOFA 子分数≥ 3):这项分析表明,COVID-19 和非 COVID-19 呼吸系统队列之间的 SOFA 子分数存在显著差异,这突出了在临床研究中报告器官功能障碍时考虑单个器官功能障碍而非仅依赖 SOFA 总分的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reporting SOFA in research: we should always present each of the SOFA subscores.

Introduction: The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score is the sum of 6 components, each representing one organ system with dysfunction classified on a 4-point scale. In research, usually by default, the total SOFA score is taken into account, but it may not reflect the severity of the condition of the individual organs. Often, these values are expected to predict mortality.

Material and methods: In this study, we reanalysed 2 cohorts of critically ill elderly patients to explore the distribution of SOFA subscores and to assess the between-group differences. Both cohorts were adjusted to maintain similarity in terms of age and the primary cause of admission (respiratory cause).

Results: In total, 910 (non-COVID-19 cohort) and 551 patients (COVID-19 cohort) were included in the analysis. Both cohorts were similar in terms of the total SOFA score (median 5 vs. 5 points); however, the groups differed significantly in 4/6 SOFA subscores (respiratory, neurological, cardiovascular, and coagulation subscores). Moreover, the cohorts had different fractions of organ failures (defined as a SOFA subscore ≥ 3).

Conclusions: This analysis revealed significant differences in SOFA subscores between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 respiratory cohorts, highlighting the importance of considering individual organ dysfunction rather than relying solely on the total SOFA score when reporting organ dysfunction in clinical research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
A randomised controlled trial to compare blind intubation success through LMA Blockbuster® and I-Gel® LMA. Can't intubate, can't oxygenate? What is the preferred surgical strategy? A retrospective analysis. Measures of preoperative anxiety: Part two. Navigating through the paradox of choice: prediction of outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Nutritional management in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a retrospective multicentre study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1