Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22550349›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2012

Derivation and validation of a risk adjustment model for predicting seven day mortality in emergency medical admissions: mixed prospective and retrospective cohort study.

Steve Goodacre, Richard Wilson, Neil Shephard, Jon Nicholl, DAVROS Research Team

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Steve GoodacreSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 4DA, United Kingdom. s.goodacre@sheffield.ac.uk
Richard Wilson
Neil Shephard
Jon Nicholl
DAVROS Research Team

Funding

Medical Research Council G0600295
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo derive and validate a risk adjustment model for predicting seven day mortality in emergency medical admissions, to test the value of including physiology and blood parameters, and to explore the constancy of the risk associated with each model variable across a range of settings.

designMixed prospective and retrospective cohort study.

settingNine acute hospitals (n = 3 derivation, n = 9 validation) and associated ambulance services in England, Australia, and Hong Kong.

participantsAdults with medical emergencies (n = 5644 derivation, n = 13,762 validation) who were alive and not in cardiac arrest when attended by an ambulance and either were admitted to hospital or died in the ambulance or emergency department.

interventionsData were either collected prospectively or retrospectively from routine sources and extraction from ambulance and emergency department records.

main outcome measureMortality up to seven days after hospital admission.

resultsIn the derivation phase, age, ICD-10 code, active malignancy, Glasgow coma score, respiratory rate, peripheral oxygen saturation, temperature, white cell count, and potassium and urea concentrations were independent predictors of seven day mortality. A model based on age and ICD-10 code alone had a C statistic of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.83), which increased to 0.81 (0.79 to 0.84) with the addition of active malignancy. This was markedly improved only when physiological variables (C statistic 0.87, 0.85 to 0.89), blood variables (0.87, 0.84 to 0.89), or both (0.90, 0.88 to 0.92) were added. In the validation phase, the models with physiology variables (physiology model) and all variables (full model) were tested in nine hospitals. Overall, the C statistics ranged across centres from 0.80 to 0.91 for the physiology model and from 0.83 to 0.93 for the full model. The rank order of hospitals based on adjusted mortality differed markedly from the rank order based on crude mortality. ICD-10 code, Glasgow coma score, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, oxygen saturation, haemoglobin concentration, white cell count, and potassium, urea, creatinine, and glucose concentrations all had statistically significant interactions with hospital.

conclusionA risk adjustment model for emergency medical admissions based on age, ICD-10 code, active malignancy, and routinely recorded physiological and blood variables can provide excellent discriminant value for seven day mortality across a range of settings. Using risk adjustment markedly changed hospitals' rankings. However, evidence was found that the association between key model variables and mortality were not constant. Supplementary data appendix.

Indexed as

Hospital MortalityModels, StatisticalAdultAustraliaEmergency Service, HospitalEnglandFemaleHong KongHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID22550349
PMCPMC3341268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.