Severity of illness scoring systems in the intensive care unit

Mark T. Keegan, Ognjen Gajic, Bekele Afessa

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

104 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Adult intensive care unit prognostic models have been used for predicting patient outcome for three decades. The goal of this review is to describe the different versions of the main adult intensive care unit prognostic models and discuss their potential roles. Data source: PubMed search and review of the relevant medical literature. Summary: The main prognostic models for assessing the overall severity of illness in critically ill adults are Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, Simplified Acute Physiology Score, and Mortality Probability Model. Simplified Acute Physiology Score and Mortality Probability Model have been updated to their third versions and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation to its fourth version. The development of prognostic models is usually followed by internal and external validation and performance assessment. Performance is assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for discrimination and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic for calibration. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV, and Mortality Probability Model0 III were 0.85, 0.88, and 0.82, respectively, and all these three fourth-generation models had good calibration. The models have been extensively used for case-mix adjustment in clinical research and epidemiology, but their role in benchmarking, performance improvement, resource use, and clinical decision support has been less well studied. Conclusions: The fourth-generation Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV, and Mortality Probability Model0 III adult prognostic models, perform well in predicting mortality. Future studies are needed to determine their roles for benchmarking, performance improvement, resource use, and clinical decision support.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)163-169
Number of pages7
JournalCritical Care Medicine
Volume39
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2011

Fingerprint

APACHE
Intensive Care Units
Clinical Decision Support Systems
Mortality
Benchmarking
ROC Curve
Calibration
Risk Adjustment
Information Storage and Retrieval
PubMed
Critical Illness
Epidemiology
Simplified Acute Physiology Score
Research

Keywords

  • APACHE
  • benchmarking
  • critical care
  • intensive care unit
  • mortality
  • outcome assessment
  • statistical models

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Severity of illness scoring systems in the intensive care unit. / Keegan, Mark T.; Gajic, Ognjen; Afessa, Bekele.

In: Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 39, No. 1, 01.2011, p. 163-169.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Keegan, Mark T. ; Gajic, Ognjen ; Afessa, Bekele. / Severity of illness scoring systems in the intensive care unit. In: Critical Care Medicine. 2011 ; Vol. 39, No. 1. pp. 163-169.
@article{b7f9e571a1a7458e8bcfbac288c51916,
title = "Severity of illness scoring systems in the intensive care unit",
abstract = "Objective: Adult intensive care unit prognostic models have been used for predicting patient outcome for three decades. The goal of this review is to describe the different versions of the main adult intensive care unit prognostic models and discuss their potential roles. Data source: PubMed search and review of the relevant medical literature. Summary: The main prognostic models for assessing the overall severity of illness in critically ill adults are Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, Simplified Acute Physiology Score, and Mortality Probability Model. Simplified Acute Physiology Score and Mortality Probability Model have been updated to their third versions and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation to its fourth version. The development of prognostic models is usually followed by internal and external validation and performance assessment. Performance is assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for discrimination and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic for calibration. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV, and Mortality Probability Model0 III were 0.85, 0.88, and 0.82, respectively, and all these three fourth-generation models had good calibration. The models have been extensively used for case-mix adjustment in clinical research and epidemiology, but their role in benchmarking, performance improvement, resource use, and clinical decision support has been less well studied. Conclusions: The fourth-generation Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV, and Mortality Probability Model0 III adult prognostic models, perform well in predicting mortality. Future studies are needed to determine their roles for benchmarking, performance improvement, resource use, and clinical decision support.",
keywords = "APACHE, benchmarking, critical care, intensive care unit, mortality, outcome assessment, statistical models",
author = "Keegan, {Mark T.} and Ognjen Gajic and Bekele Afessa",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181f96f81",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "39",
pages = "163--169",
journal = "Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "0090-3493",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Severity of illness scoring systems in the intensive care unit

AU - Keegan, Mark T.

AU - Gajic, Ognjen

AU - Afessa, Bekele

PY - 2011/1

Y1 - 2011/1

N2 - Objective: Adult intensive care unit prognostic models have been used for predicting patient outcome for three decades. The goal of this review is to describe the different versions of the main adult intensive care unit prognostic models and discuss their potential roles. Data source: PubMed search and review of the relevant medical literature. Summary: The main prognostic models for assessing the overall severity of illness in critically ill adults are Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, Simplified Acute Physiology Score, and Mortality Probability Model. Simplified Acute Physiology Score and Mortality Probability Model have been updated to their third versions and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation to its fourth version. The development of prognostic models is usually followed by internal and external validation and performance assessment. Performance is assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for discrimination and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic for calibration. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV, and Mortality Probability Model0 III were 0.85, 0.88, and 0.82, respectively, and all these three fourth-generation models had good calibration. The models have been extensively used for case-mix adjustment in clinical research and epidemiology, but their role in benchmarking, performance improvement, resource use, and clinical decision support has been less well studied. Conclusions: The fourth-generation Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV, and Mortality Probability Model0 III adult prognostic models, perform well in predicting mortality. Future studies are needed to determine their roles for benchmarking, performance improvement, resource use, and clinical decision support.

AB - Objective: Adult intensive care unit prognostic models have been used for predicting patient outcome for three decades. The goal of this review is to describe the different versions of the main adult intensive care unit prognostic models and discuss their potential roles. Data source: PubMed search and review of the relevant medical literature. Summary: The main prognostic models for assessing the overall severity of illness in critically ill adults are Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, Simplified Acute Physiology Score, and Mortality Probability Model. Simplified Acute Physiology Score and Mortality Probability Model have been updated to their third versions and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation to its fourth version. The development of prognostic models is usually followed by internal and external validation and performance assessment. Performance is assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for discrimination and Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic for calibration. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV, and Mortality Probability Model0 III were 0.85, 0.88, and 0.82, respectively, and all these three fourth-generation models had good calibration. The models have been extensively used for case-mix adjustment in clinical research and epidemiology, but their role in benchmarking, performance improvement, resource use, and clinical decision support has been less well studied. Conclusions: The fourth-generation Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV, and Mortality Probability Model0 III adult prognostic models, perform well in predicting mortality. Future studies are needed to determine their roles for benchmarking, performance improvement, resource use, and clinical decision support.

KW - APACHE

KW - benchmarking

KW - critical care

KW - intensive care unit

KW - mortality

KW - outcome assessment

KW - statistical models

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78651253781&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78651253781&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181f96f81

DO - 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181f96f81

M3 - Article

C2 - 20838329

AN - SCOPUS:78651253781

VL - 39

SP - 163

EP - 169

JO - Critical Care Medicine

JF - Critical Care Medicine

SN - 0090-3493

IS - 1

ER -