ReviewCritical care (London, England)2008
Bench-to-bedside review: The MET syndrome--the challenges of researching and adopting medical emergency teams.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 82 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ten Steps for Implementing a Hospital Rapid Response System.Journal of medical systems · 2025Review
- Caring for critically ill patients outside intensive care units due to full units: a cohort study.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2017Article
- Evaluation of the five-year operation period of a rapid response team led by an intensive care physician at a university hospital.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva · 2016Article
- Medical Rapid Response in Psychiatry: Reasons for Activation and Immediate Outcome.The Psychiatric quarterly · 2015Article
- I-RREACH: an engagement and assessment tool for improving implementation readiness of researchers, organizations and communities in complex interventions.Implementation science : IS · 2015Article
- Blue code: Is it a real emergency?World journal of emergency medicine · 2014Article
- Challenges to evaluating complex interventions: a content analysis of published papers.BMC public health · 2013Article
- Duration of hospital participation in Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation and survival of in-hospital cardiac arrest.Resuscitation · 2012Article
- Incidence of cardiac arrests and unexpected deaths in surgical patients before and after implementation of a rapid response system.Annals of intensive care · 2012Article
- Variability in case-mix adjusted in-hospital cardiac arrest rates.Medical care · 2012Article
- Rapid response systems in acute hospital care.Annals of thoracic medicine · 2010Article
- A prospective study of factors influencing the outcome of patients after a Medical Emergency Team review.Intensive care medicine · 2008Article
- The performance of a rapid response team in the management of code yellow events at a university hospital.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensivaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Studies of hospital performance highlight the problem of 'failure to rescue' in acutely ill patients. This is a deficiency strongly associated with serious adverse events, cardiac arrest, or death. Rapid response systems (RRSs) and their efferent arm, the medical emergency team (MET), provide early specialist critical care to patients affected by the 'MET syndrome': unequivocal physiological instability or significant hospital staff concern for patients in a non-critical care environment. This intervention aims to prevent serious adverse events, cardiac arrests, and unexpected deaths. Though clinically logical and relatively simple, its adoption poses major challenges. Furthermore, research about the effectiveness of RRS is difficult to conduct. Skeptics argue that inadequate evidence exists to support its widespread application. Indeed, supportive evidence is based on before-and-after studies, observational investigations, and inductive reasoning. However, implementing a complex intervention like RRS poses enormous logistic, political, cultural, and financial challenges. In addition, double-blinded randomised controlled trials of RRS are simply not possible. Instead, as in the case of cardiac arrest and trauma teams, change in practice may be slow and progressive, even in the absence of level I evidence. It appears likely that the accumulation of evidence from different settings and situations, though methodologically imperfect, will increase the rationale and logic of RRS. A conclusive randomised controlled trial is unlikely to occur.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.