This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal

Arch Surg. 2001;136:353.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Much has been written about the use of the various Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scoring methods. The APACHE score, a measure of physiologic derangement, chronic health status, and patient age, has not demonstrated consistent validity for surgical patients. There is substantial skepticism about the analytical role of this type of classification system. Koperna et al¹ highlight the usefulness of APACHE II in risk stratification in emergency surgical patients.

In regard to the main statistical methods employed by the authors (² test, 1-factor analysis of variance, and multiple logistic regression), it was difficult to determine whether the appropriate methods were applied in the "Results" section. For example, the authors claim that the mean APACHE II at the beginning of treatment was significantly different (P<.001) from the mean APACHE II score on admission to the intensive care unit. Because the type of data analyzed was paired (both . . . [Full Text of this Article]