Skip to main content

Are APACHE II scores better predictors of mortality than routine laboratory values?


Even though more accurate and updated versions such as APACHE III and IV have been developed, APACHE II has remained the most widely used severity scoring system in the ICU [1]. In the present study, we aimed to develop a model mainly based on the laboratory data available upon admission to predict mortality and to compare its performance with that of APACHE II in a mixed ICU in Turkey.


A total of 645 adult patients who were over 18 years old and who stayed in the ICU for more than 24 hours were included in this study. Using stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis, a mortality prediction model was developed based on the laboratory data, diagnostic category and age. The adjusted probability of death, according to the diagnostic category of the APACHE II score (adj-APACHE II), was calculated. The ability of the laboratory model and the adj-APACHE II model to discriminate between survivors and nonsurvivors was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The calibration of the laboratory model and the adj-APACHE II model was assessed by the Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.


The areas under the ROC curves of the laboratory models and the adj-APACHE II scores for the prediction of mortality were 0.80 (95% CI: 0.76 to 0.85) and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.83), respectively (P > 0.05, z statistic). The Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic had a chi-squared value of 2.01 (P = 0.98) for the laboratory model and 13.2 (P = 0.10) for the adj-APACHE II model.


If the aim is to predict mortality as accurately as APACHE II, the mortality prediction model based mainly on routine admission laboratory tests can achieve this using computer technology, without labor-related costs, as soon as the patient is admitted to the ICU. However, it is necessary to perform multicenter validation studies.


  1. 1.

    Breslow MJ, Badawi O: Severity scoring in the critically ill: part 1 - interpretation and accuracy of outcome prediction scoring systems. Chest 2012, 141: 245-252. 10.1378/chest.11-0330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Z Baykara.

Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baykara, Z., Özocak, H., Kuş, A. et al. Are APACHE II scores better predictors of mortality than routine laboratory values?. Crit Care 17, P473 (2013).

Download citation


  • Receiver Operating Characteristic
  • Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve
  • Laboratory Data
  • Multivariate Logistic Regression Analysis
  • Diagnostic Category