Condition | Formula |
---|---|
Additional information
A total of 22,791 admissions were recorded in the 309 participating ICUs during the study period. For patients who were admitted more than once (n=1,455), only the first admission was included, giving 21,336 admitted patients. Patients who were <16 years of age (n=628), those without ICU admission or discharge data (n=1,074), and those with records that lacked an entry in the field “ICU outcome” (n=57) were excluded. The Basic SAPS 3 Cohort thus comprises 19,577 patients from 307 ICUs.For the development of a predictive model for hospital mortality as outcome, patients with a missing entry in the field of “vital status at hospital discharge” (n=2,540) or an entry of “still in the hospital” at the end of the follow-up period (n=253) were further excluded. The SAPS 3 Hospital Outcome Cohort thus comprises 16,784 patients from 303 ICUs.
Study Population
Total population size: 19559Continuous characteristics
Name | LL | Q1 | Median | Q3 | UL | Unit |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 49 | 63 | 74 | years | ||
ICU Length of Stay | 1 | 2 | 6 | days | ||
SAPS II score | 20 | 30 | 42 | score | ||
SOFA score | 6 | 9 | 11 | score |
Categorical characteristics
Name | Subset / Group | Nr. of patients |
---|---|---|
Origin | Home | 2810 |
Same hospital | 13926 | |
Chronic care facility | 74 | |
Public place | 519 | |
Other hospital | 2125 | |
Other | 80 | |
Missing | 43 | |
Intra-hospital location before ICU admission | Operating room | 7537 |
Other | 552 | |
Other ICU | 698 | |
Recovery room | 482 | |
Ward | 3411 | |
Missing | 916 | |
Emergency room | 5419 | |
Intermediate care unit/ high dependency unit | 562 | |
ICU admission status | Planned admission | 6750 |
Unplanned admission | 12338 | |
Missing | 489 | |
Acute infection at ICU admission | No infection | 15254 |
Clinically improbable/colonization | 342 | |
Clinically probable/documented | 2761 | |
Microbiologically documented | 1206 | |
Missing | 13 | |
Surgical status | No surgical procedure | 8437 |
Scheduled surgery | 6800 | |
Emergency surgery | 3321 | |
Missing | 1019 | |
ICU discharge - destination | Home | 438 |
Same hospital | 14946 | |
Other hospital | 1029 | |
Missing | 3164 | |
Intrahospital discharge | IMCU/HDU | 2222 |
Other | 303 | |
Other ICU | 583 | |
Recovery room | 306 | |
Ward | 12250 | |
Missing | 3855 | |
ICU discharge - status | Planned discharge | 14872 |
Unplanned discharge | 1595 | |
Missing | 3110 | |
Outcome | ICU mortality (%) | 15.2 |
|
SAPS III: Simplified acute physiology score 3 |
|
V-1.33-1114.18.08.27 |
|
Refer to Intended Use for instructions before use |
|
Evidencio B.V., Irenesingel 19, 7481 GJ, Haaksbergen, the Netherlands |
Supporting Publications
Title or description | Tags |
---|---|
SAPS 3—From evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 1: Objectives, methods and cohort description | Internal validation Paper Peer review |
SAPS 3—From evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 2: Development of a prognostic model for hospital mortality at ICU admission | Internal validation Paper Peer review |
Comparison of the performance of SAPS II, SAPS 3, APACHE II, and their customized prognostic models in a surgical intensive care unit
DOI:
10.1093/bja/aen291
|
External validation Paper Peer review |
The predicted mortality risk in the ICU is: ... %
{{ model.survival.PITTitle }}
{{ model.survival.YNETitle }}
The predicted mortality risk in the ICU is: %
Outcome stratification
Conditional information
Result interpretation
The SAPS 3 is an externally validated tool that accurately predicts ICU mortality. The score was evaluated and compared with the APACHE II and the SAPS 2. The performance of the SAPS 3 was similar to that of the APACHE II and the SAPSII
Discrimination of the SAPS 3 model showed c-statistics up to 0.89. The C-SAPS 3 score appeared to have the best calibration curve on visual inspection.
Y Sakr, C. Krauss, ACKB Amaral, et al. Comparison of the performance of SAPS II, SAPS 3, APACHE II, and their customized prognostic models in a surgical intensive care unit, BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia, Volume 101, Issue 6, 1 December 2008, Pages 798–803
Calculations alone should never dictate patient care, and are no substitute for professional judgement. See our full disclaimer.
Model feedback
No feedback yet 1 Comment {{ model.comments.length }} CommentsSign In
Sign Up
With an Evidencio Community account you can:
- Create and publish your own prediction models.
- Share your prediction models with your colleagues, research group, organization or the world.
- Review and provide feedback on models that have been shared with you.
- Validate your models and validate models from other users.
- Find models based on Title, Keyword, Author, Institute, or MeSH classification.
- Use and save prediction models and their data.
- Use patient specific protocols and guidelines based on sequential models and decision trees.
- Stay up-to-date with new models in your field as they are published.
- Create your own lists of favorite models and topics.

Please sign in to enable Evidencio print features
If you don't have an Evidencio Community Account you can create your free personal account at:
https://www.evidencio.com/registration
Printed results - Examples {{ new Date().toLocaleString() }}

Evidencio Community Account Benefits
With an Evidencio Community account you can:
- Create and publish your own prediction models.
- Share your prediction models with your colleagues, research group, organization or the world.
- Review and provide feedback on models that have been shared with you.
- Validate your models and validate models from other users.
- Find models based on Title, Keyword, Author, Institute, or MeSH classification.
- Use and save prediction models and their data.
- Use patient specific protocols and guidelines based on sequential models and decision trees.
- Stay up-to-date with new models in your field as they are published.
- Create your own lists of favorite models and topics.
{{ variable.title }}
{{ row }} |