1,720,969 research outputs found
Comparison of SAPS II, MPM II24 and SAPS in intensive care [Confronto fra SAPS II, MPM II24 e SAPS in terapia intensiva]
No full textOBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of the new SAPS II, new MPM2 and SAPS in a cohort of patients admitted to our polyvalent ICU. METHODS: Design: the ability of the SAPS II scoring system to predict the probability of hospital mortality was assessing calibration and discrimination (ROC curve) measures obtained using published coefficients and within relevant subgroups using formal statistic assessment (goodness of fit). Patients: from May 1997 to May 1998, 420 consecutive patients over 18 years old. RESULTS: When the parameters based on the standard model were applied, the SAPS II discrimination (area under ROC curve) was = 0.889 and calibration (chi square test) of SAPS II was = 4.448 with p = 0.879; MPM2 chi 2 = 0.9385, p = 0.402 and SAPS chi 2 = 27.089, p = 0.0001. The performance of SAPS II model was very good. Worst predictive accuracy was achieved in trauma and elective surgery patients. CONCLUSIONS: SAPS II model gave good results in terms of calibration and discrimination. SAPS II has better accuracy then SAPS and MPM2. Concerning the performance of models, large differences were apparent in relevant subgroups: trauma and sepsis patients. Moreover the choice of adequate statistic method to compare intensive care populations appeared to need more research
La necrosi pancreatica infetta in terapia intensiva
No full textBACKGROUND: Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is the most fulminant variety of this disease. The reported mortality is up to 50%. The haemodynamic features of cardiovascular instability has many similarities to sepsis syndrome, septic shock and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). The purpose of this study is to review personal experience in the ICU (hospital of Varese) to determine etiology, treatment and complications. METHODS: Twenty patients treated since 1988 with infected necrotizing pancreatitis required surgical treatment and mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: The mortality rate was 60% and ICU-stay was 26.5 +/- 12.3 days, the median age was 54 +/- 13. Ranson's criteria at admission to the ICU was 6.6 +/- 1.2, Glasgow point was 4.6 +/- 1.2 (5.5 +/- 0.87 died, 3.2 +/- 0.8 survived p < 0.01), Baltazar score 6.2 +/- 2.1 (7.4 +/- 2.1 died, 5.5 +/- 0.9 survived p < 0.05) and SAPS II score 43.4 +/- 12.1 (50.1 +/- 7.8 died, 34 +/- 5.5 survived p < 0.01). The etiology was: gallstones (45%), alcoholism (15%), ERCP (15%) and idiopathic in 25%. Serum pancreatic amylase was 342 +/- 113.9 U/l (550 +/- 100 died, 155 +/- 60 survived p < 0.01), lipase was 334 +/- 176 U/l and transaminases GOT was 123 +/- 46 u/l (156 +/- 90 died, 29 +/- 7 survived p < 0.05). High initial amylase and GOT levels were frequently found in non survived patients. MODS occurred in 17 cases (85%), ARDS in 2 patients (10%), abdominal bleeding in 6 (30%) and septic syndrome in 8 (40%). CONCLUSIONS: It is thus possible that a target-oriented approach including fluid replacement, rapid correction of intestinal underperfusion, inotropic and antibiotic therapy, supply of specific nutrients and other therapeutic strategies as open laparostomy must be employed to prevent MODS or septic syndrome in pancreatic infection after acute necrotizing pancreatitis
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
