Mastering the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score: Critical Choices of Score Statistic, Timing, Imputations, and Competing Risk Handling in Major Trials-A Systematic Review.

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Marilena Marmiere, Filippo D'Amico, Giacomo Monti, Giovanni Landoni
{"title":"Mastering the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score: Critical Choices of Score Statistic, Timing, Imputations, and Competing Risk Handling in Major Trials-A Systematic Review.","authors":"Marilena Marmiere, Filippo D'Amico, Giacomo Monti, Giovanni Landoni","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score originated as a tool for assessing organ dysfunction in critical illness but has expanded to become an outcome measure in clinical trials. We aimed to assess how the SOFA score was used as the primary or secondary endpoint of major randomized controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Independent reviewers searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Articles were selected when they fulfilled: 1) RCT; 2) SOFA score was primary or secondary endpoint; and 3) published in the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, or Journal of the American Medical Association.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Data collection included study details, outcomes, statistical differences in SOFA score, choice of score statistics, timepoints of SOFA reporting, and how missing data and competing risks analysis were managed.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>Twenty-three RCTs had SOFA score as outcome measure, eight used it as primary endpoint. Daily maximum SOFA was the key statistic in 11 RCTs, delta SOFA was used in eight, and mean SOFA in four. Mean SOFA was most frequently chosen as primary endpoint (4/8, 50%). There were 18 different outcome assessment timepoints, ranging from 1 to 28 days. Three RCTs reported statistically significant difference in SOFA between groups. Handling of missing SOFA scores was not described in ten of 23 RCTs. When described, it varied from study to study with variable imputation methods and variable accounting for the competing risk of mortality and ICU discharge.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is major variability in the choice of summary statistic for SOFA score analysis and assessment timepoints, when using it as outcome measure in RCTs. There was either no information or great variability in the handling of missing values, use of imputation, and accounting for competing risk. The current use of SOFA scores in RCTs lacks sufficient reproducibility and statistical and methodological robustness.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006532","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score originated as a tool for assessing organ dysfunction in critical illness but has expanded to become an outcome measure in clinical trials. We aimed to assess how the SOFA score was used as the primary or secondary endpoint of major randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Data sources: Independent reviewers searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases.

Study selection: Articles were selected when they fulfilled: 1) RCT; 2) SOFA score was primary or secondary endpoint; and 3) published in the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, or Journal of the American Medical Association.

Data extraction: Data collection included study details, outcomes, statistical differences in SOFA score, choice of score statistics, timepoints of SOFA reporting, and how missing data and competing risks analysis were managed.

Data synthesis: Twenty-three RCTs had SOFA score as outcome measure, eight used it as primary endpoint. Daily maximum SOFA was the key statistic in 11 RCTs, delta SOFA was used in eight, and mean SOFA in four. Mean SOFA was most frequently chosen as primary endpoint (4/8, 50%). There were 18 different outcome assessment timepoints, ranging from 1 to 28 days. Three RCTs reported statistically significant difference in SOFA between groups. Handling of missing SOFA scores was not described in ten of 23 RCTs. When described, it varied from study to study with variable imputation methods and variable accounting for the competing risk of mortality and ICU discharge.

Conclusions: There is major variability in the choice of summary statistic for SOFA score analysis and assessment timepoints, when using it as outcome measure in RCTs. There was either no information or great variability in the handling of missing values, use of imputation, and accounting for competing risk. The current use of SOFA scores in RCTs lacks sufficient reproducibility and statistical and methodological robustness.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信