Table 6 Model performance for all versions of SAPS
Study | Scoring system | Discrimination | Calibration | Sensitivity | Specificity | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ratanarat et al. (2005) [68] | SAPS I | 0.746 | NR | 70.2% (DC = 15) | 67.1% (DC = 15) | NR |
Nair et al. (2016) [62] | SAPS I | 0.742 | NR | 44.4% (DC = 61) | 94.9% (DC = 61) | 85.42% |
Khwannimit and Bhurayanontachai (2011) [51] | SAPS II (recalibrated model) | 0.919 (0.899–9.24) | C statistic χ2 = 8.6 (p = 0.57) | NR | NR | NR |
H statistic χ2 = 9.6 (p = 0.48) | ||||||
Khwannimit and Bhurayanontachai (2011) [51] | SAPS II | 0.919 (0.899–9.24) | C statistic χ2 = 124.9 (p < 0.001) | NR | NR | NR |
H statistic χ2 = 97.5 (p < 0.001) | ||||||
Soares et al. (2004) [40] | SAPS II | 0.916 (0.899–0.933) | H statistic χ2 = 29.400 (p < 0.001) | NR | NR | NR |
Juneja et al. (2012) [1] | SAPS II | 0.899 (0.870–0.928) | χ2 = 14.097 (p = 0.079) | 83.5% (DC > 47.5) | 83.5% (DC > 47.5) | NR |
Godinjak et al. (2016) [31] | SAPS II | 0.892 (0.84–0.94) | NR | 90.2% (DC = 50.5) | 75.7% (DC =5 0.5) | NR |
Khawannimit and Geater (2007) [38] | SAPS II | 0.888 (0.867–0.909) | C statistic χ2 = 71.44 (p < 0.001) H statistic χ2 = 54.01 (p < 0.001) | 70.65% (95% CI = 65.23–75.66) | 89% (95% CI = 87.08–91.02) | 85% (95% CI = 82.75–86.70) |
Fadaizadeh et al. (2012) [67] | SAPS II | 0.887 (0.847–0.926) | C statistic χ2 = 7014 (p = 0:522) | 83% (DC = 86.5) | 77% (DC = 86.5) | NR |
Sutheechet (2009) [79] | SAPS II | 0.88 (0.85–0.91) | C statistic χ2 = 20.65 (p = 0.008) | Individual values for each risk level | Individual values for each risk level | Individual values for each risk level |
Soares and Salluh (2006) [39] | SAPS II | 0.88 (0.86–0.9) | C statistic χ2 = 32.136 (p < 0.001) | NR | NR | NR |
Khan et al. (2015) [32] | SAPS II (48 hours) | 0.871 (0.794–0.948) | NR | 70.6% (DC > 30) | 86.3% (DC > 30) | NR |
Hamza et al. (2009) [76] | SAPS II | 0.845 (0.787–0.903) | H statistic χ2 = 12.140 (p = 0.145) | NR | NR | NR |
Soares et al. (2010) [41] | SAPS II | 0.84 (0.81–0.87) | C statistic χ2 = 21.143 (p = 0.007) | NR | NR | NR |
Nouira et al. (1998) [66] | SAPS II | 0.84 | C statistic χ2 = 73.78 (p < 0.001) | NR | NR | NR |
H statistic χ2 = 76.89 (p < 0.05) | ||||||
Sathe and Bapat (2014) [69] | SAPS II | 0.83 (0.81–0.86) | χ2 = 26.6 (p = 0.001) | NR | NR | NR |
Zhao et al. (2013) [50] | SAPS II | 0.826 (0.803–0.85) | χ2 = 12.176 (p = 0.144) | 85% | 74.3% | 82.4% |
Zhao et al. (2013) [50] | SAPS II (48 hours) | 0.821 (0.795–0.848) | χ2 = 11.294 (p = 0.186) | 85% | 74.3% | 83.8% |
Aggarwal et al. (2006) [7] | SAPS II | 0.781 | C statistic χ2 = 195.6 (p < 0.001) H statistic χ2 = 159.6 (p < 0.001) | 46.1% (38.1–54.3) (DC = 25%), 27.35% (20.4–35.0) (DC = 50%), 10.4% (6.1–16.3) (DC = 75%) | 89.3% (85.2–92.5) (DC = 25%), 95.6% (92.7–97.7) (DC = 50%), 98.7% (96.6–99.6) (DC = 75%) | 74.6% (70.3–78.5) (DC = 25%), 72.3% (68.0–76.4) (DC = 50%), 68.6% (64.1–72.8) (DC = 75%) |
Gilani et al. (2014) [70] | SAPS II | 0.78 | χ2 = 8.575 (p = 0.379) | 70.5% (DC = 13) | 63% (DC = 13) | NR |
Zhao et al. (2013) [50] | SAPS II (initial) | 0.776 (0.75–0.802) | χ2 = 8.332 (p = 0.402) | 85% | 74.3% | 80% |
Naqvi et al. (2016) [33] | SAPS II | 0.75 | χ2 = 3.724 (p = 0.811) | NR | NR | NR |
Faruq et al. (2013) [37] | SAPS II | 0.74 (0.66–0.81) | C statistic χ2 = 9.040 (p = 0.34) | NR | NR | NR |
Khan et al. (2015) [32] | SAPS II | 0.718 (0.608–0.828) | NR | 70.6% (DC > 30) | 60.8% (DC > 30) | NR |
Wilairatana et al. (1995) [82] | SAPS II | 0.71 | NR | 0.742 (cut-off point = 14) | 0.6 (cut-off point = 14) | 68.40% |
Sekulic et al. (2015) [48] | SAPS II | 0.69 | χ2 = 4.41 (p = 0.732) | Presented as a figure | Presented as a figure | NR |
Galal et al. (2013) [49] | SAPS II | 0.59 | χ2 = 7.2, p = 0.3 | 53.4% (DC = 40) | 62% (DC = 40) | 57.1% |
Mohan et al. (2015) [46] | SAPS II | NR | NR | 81.1% (DC > 35) | 59.5% (DC > 35) | NR |
Xing et al. (2015) [52] | SAPS 3 | 0.948 (0.914–0.982) | χ2 = 4.987 (p = 0.759) | NR | NR | NR |
Khwannimit and Bhurayanontachai (2011) [51] | SAPS 3 (AUS) (recalibrated model) | 0.917 (0.902–0.929) | C statistic χ2 = 8.2 (p = 0.61) | NR | NR | NR |
H statistic χ2 = 79.9 (p < 0.001) | ||||||
Khwannimit and Bhurayanontachai (2011) [51] | SAPS 3 (AUS) | 0.917 (0.902–0.929) | C statistic χ2 = 170 (p < 0.001) | NR | NR | NR |
H statistic χ2 = 79.9 (p < 0.001) | ||||||
Khwannimit and Bhurayanontachai (2011) [51] | SAPS 3 | 0.914 (0.901–0.928) | C statistic χ2 = 176.3 (p < 0.001) | NR | NR | NR |
H statistic χ2 = 101.6 (p < 0.001) | ||||||
Juneja et al. (2012) [1] | SAPS 3 | 0.901 (0.871–0.932) | χ2 = 13.123 (p = 0.108) | 76.7% (DC > 56.5) | 84.7% (DC > 56.5) | NR |
Soares and Salluh (2006) [39] | SAPS 3 (CSA) | 0.87 (0.85–0.9) | C statistic χ2 = 9.132 (p = 0.33) | NR | NR | NR |
Soares and Salluh (2006) [39] | SAPS 3 | 0.87 (0.85–0.9) | C statistic χ2 = 13.637 (p = 0.092) | NR | NR | NR |
Silva Junior et al. (2010) [55] | SAPS 3 | 0.86 (0.83–0.88) | C statistic χ2 = 10.47 (p = 0.234) | 0.75 (DC = 57) | 0.86 (DC = 57) | NR |
Nassar et al. (2012) [42] | SAPS 3 | 0.855 (0.846–0.864) | C statistic χ2 = 226.6 (p < 0.01) | NR | NR | NR |
Soares et al. (2010) [41] | SAPS 3 (CSA) | 0.84 (0.81–0.87) | C statistic χ2 = 12.608 (p = 0.126) | NR | NR | NR |
Soares et al. (2010) [41] | SAPS 3 | 0.84 (0.81–0.87) | C statistic χ2 = 15.804 (p = 0.045) | NR | NR | NR |
Hernandez et al. (2014) [78] | SAPS 3 | 0.8 (0.78–0.81) | C statistic χ2 = 11.5 (p = 0.18) | NR | NR | NR |
Evran et al. (2016) [47] | SAPS 3 | Presented as a figure | NR | NR | NR | 81.3% |
Mohan et al. (2015) [46] | SAPS 3 | NR | NR | 81.1% (DC > 47) | 51.1% (DC > 47) | NR |