We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Re-evaluation and modification of the Stuivenberg Hospital Acute Renal Failure (SHARF) scoring system for the prognosis of acute renal failure: an independent multicentre, prospective study.
Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2004 September
BACKGROUND: A prognostic scoring system for hospital mortality in acute renal failure (Stuivenberg Hospital Acute Renal Failure, SHARF score) was developed in a single-centre study. The scoring system consists of two scores, for the time of diagnosis of acute renal failure (ARF) and for 48 h later, each originally based on four parameters (age, serum albumin, prothrombin time and heart failure). The scoring system was now tested and adapted in a prospective study.
METHODS: The study involved eight intensive care units. We studied 293 consecutive patients with ARF in 6 months. Their mortality was 50.5%. The causes of ARF were medical in 184 (63%) patients and surgical in 108 (37%). In the latter group, 74 (69%) patients underwent cardiac and 19 (18%) vascular surgery.
RESULTS: As the performance of the original SHARF scores was much lower in the multicentre study than in the original single-centre study, we re-analysed the multicentre data to customize the original model for the population studied. The independent variables were the score developed in the original study plus all additonal parameters that were significant on univariate analysis. The new multivariate analysis revealed an additional subset of three parameters for inclusion in the model (serum bilirubin, sepsis and hypotension). For the modified SHARF II score, r(2) was 0.27 at 0 and 0.33 at 48 h, respectively, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) values were 0.82 and 0.83, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit P values were 0.19 and 0.05.
CONCLUSION: After customizing and by using two scoring moments, this prediction model for hospital mortality in ARF is useful in different settings for comparing groups of patients and centres, quality assessment and clinical trials. We do not recommend its use for individual patient prognosis.
METHODS: The study involved eight intensive care units. We studied 293 consecutive patients with ARF in 6 months. Their mortality was 50.5%. The causes of ARF were medical in 184 (63%) patients and surgical in 108 (37%). In the latter group, 74 (69%) patients underwent cardiac and 19 (18%) vascular surgery.
RESULTS: As the performance of the original SHARF scores was much lower in the multicentre study than in the original single-centre study, we re-analysed the multicentre data to customize the original model for the population studied. The independent variables were the score developed in the original study plus all additonal parameters that were significant on univariate analysis. The new multivariate analysis revealed an additional subset of three parameters for inclusion in the model (serum bilirubin, sepsis and hypotension). For the modified SHARF II score, r(2) was 0.27 at 0 and 0.33 at 48 h, respectively, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) values were 0.82 and 0.83, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit P values were 0.19 and 0.05.
CONCLUSION: After customizing and by using two scoring moments, this prediction model for hospital mortality in ARF is useful in different settings for comparing groups of patients and centres, quality assessment and clinical trials. We do not recommend its use for individual patient prognosis.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app