Reliability of the general severity scoring systems, APACHE II and SAPS II

Capuzzo, Maurizia; Pavoni, Vittorio; Valpondi, V.; Paparella, Laura; Sgarbi, A; Cingolani, E; Alvisi, R; Gritti, G

doi:10.3109/tcic.9.1.4.10

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, variations in individual prediction are not reflected in collective predictions, as reported by Chen et al for APACHE II [21]. Our own review [12] draws similar conclusions and demonstrate the reliability of our data collection.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

“…The SMRs were 0.89 (CI 95 % 0.85±0.94) and 0.98 (CI 95 % 0.94±1.03), respectively. Considering interobserver reliability, there was no statistically significant difference in probability of hospital mortality calculated using values of SAPS II and APACHE II components reabstracted by different observers, as described in detail elsewhere [12]. At the predicted risk of 0.5, sensitivity was 39.4 %, specificity 95.6 %, and correct classification rate 85.6 % for SAPS II, and 31.6 %, 97.2 %, and 85.5 %, respectively, for APACHE II.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interobserver reliability was tested in a sample of 81 cases selected from the database, reviewed by ªnew observersº [12].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Validation of severity scoring systems SAPS II and APACHE II in a single-center population

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validation of severity scoring systems SAPS II and APACHE II in a single-center population

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adequate interrater reliability of SAPS II has been reported in few studies [ 7 , 8 ] and small differences in values of some SAPS II variables between observers have determined important differences in scores [ 8 ]. The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scoring system (APACHE II) [ 9 ] has been more extensively studied, and reliable overall APACHE II scores have been achieved by various healthcare workers (trained hospital abstractors, nurses, resident physicians, and intensivists) [ 10 – 16 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reliability was demonstrated to further increase by training [ 15 ] as well as by a multifaceted, multidisciplinary quality improvement intervention [ 16 ]. However, these results all refer to well defined study settings with specifically trained observers, and just one study [ 8 ] has so far measured the accuracy of physician registered severity scores in real life.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical Care Nurses Inadequately Assess SAPS II Scores of Very Ill Patients in Real Life

Perren

Previsdomini

Perren

et al. 2012

Critical Care Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Reliable ICU severity scores have been achieved by various healthcare workers but nothing is known regarding the accuracy in real life of severity scores registered by untrained nurses. Methods. In this retrospective multicentre audit, three reviewers independently reassessed 120 SAPS II scores. Correlation and agreement of the sum-scores/variables among reviewers and between nurses and the reviewers' gold standard were assessed globally and for tertiles. Bland and Altman (gold standard—nurses) of sum scores and regression of the difference were determined. A logistic regression model identifying risk factors for erroneous assessments was calculated. Results. Correlation for sum scores among reviewers was almost perfect (mean ICC = 0.985). The mean (±SD) nurse-registered SAPS II sum score was 40.3 ± 20.2 versus 44.2 ± 24.9 of the gold standard ( P < 0.002 for difference) with a lower ICC (0.81). Bland and Altman assay was +3.8 ± 27.0 with a significant regression between the difference and the gold standard, indicating overall an overestimation (underestimation) of lower (higher; >32 points) scores. The lowest agreement was found in high SAPS II tertiles for haemodynamics ( k = 0.45–0.51). Conclusions. In real life, nurse-registered SAPS II scores of very ill patients are inaccurate. Accuracy of scores was not associated with nurses' characteristics.

show abstract

The interrater reliability of SAPS II and SAPS 3

Strand

2010

Intensive Care Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reliability of the general severity scoring systems, APACHE II and SAPS II

Cited by 5 publications

References 5 publications

Validation of severity scoring systems SAPS II and APACHE II in a single-center population

Validation of severity scoring systems SAPS II and APACHE II in a single-center population

Critical Care Nurses Inadequately Assess SAPS II Scores of Very Ill Patients in Real Life

The interrater reliability of SAPS II and SAPS 3

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About