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' conclusion
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.
Study context
- Population
- Major randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (Lancet, NEJM, JAMA) using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score as primary or secondary endpoint
- Participants
- 23 RCTs
- Outcome
- Use of SOFA score as outcome measure in RCTs
Methodological detailsmethodological review
- Methodological review
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
- RCTs using SOFA as primary endpoint
- 8
- Daily maximum SOFA as key statistic (RCTs)
- 11
- Delta SOFA as key statistic (RCTs)
- 8
- Mean SOFA as key statistic (RCTs)
- 4
- Mean SOFA as primary endpoint statistic
- 4/8, 50%
- Different outcome assessment timepoints (range 1 to 28 days)
- 18
- RCTs with statistically significant difference in SOFA between groups
- 3
- Handling of missing SOFA scores not described (of 23 RCTs)
- 10
Original publication
Mastering the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score: Critical Choices of Score Statistic, Timing, Imputations, and Competing Risk Handling in Major Trials—A Systematic Review. Crit Care Med. Published 4 December 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →