Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23718698›Full record

SynthesisCritical care (London, England)2013

A systematic review of tools for predicting severe adverse events following patient discharge from intensive care units.

F Shaun Hosein, Niklas Bobrovitz, Simon Berthelot, David Zygun, William A Ghali, Henry T Stelfox

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Factors Influencing the Decision-making of Healthcare Providers Regarding the Transition of Patients from the Intensive Care Unit to the General Ward in Iran: A Qualitative Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Review
  18. Readmissions to General ICUs in a Geographic Area of Poland Are Seemingly Associated with Better Outcomes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors.

F Shaun Hosein
Niklas Bobrovitz
Simon Berthelot
David Zygun
William A Ghali
Henry T Stelfox

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe discharge of patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) to a hospital ward is a common transition of care that is associated with error and adverse events. Risk stratification tools may help identify high-risk patients for targeted interventions, but it is unclear if proper tools have been developed.

methodsWe searched Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, PUBMED and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from the earliest available date through March 2013, plus reference lists and citations of all studies included in the systematic review. Cohort studies were selected that described the derivation, validation or clinical impact of tools for predicting medical emergency team activation, ICU readmission or mortality following patient discharge from the ICU. Data were extracted on the study design, setting, population, sample size, tool (components, measurement properties) and outcomes.

resultsThe literature search identified 9,926 citations, of which eight studies describing eight tools met the inclusion criteria. Reported outcomes included ICU readmission (n=4 studies), hospital mortality (n=3 studies) and both ICU readmission and hospital mortality (n=1 studies). Seven of the tools were comprised of distinct measurable component variables, while one tool used subjective scoring of patient risk by intensive care physicians. The areas under receiver operator curves were reported for all studies and ranged from 0.66 to 0.92. A single study provided a direct comparative analysis between two tools. We did not find any studies evaluating the impact of risk prediction on processes and outcomes of care.

conclusionsEight risk stratification tools for predicting severe adverse events following patient discharge from ICU have been developed, but have undergone limited comparative evaluation. Although risk stratification tools may help clinician decision-making, further evaluation of the existing tools' effects on care is required prior to clinical implementation.

Indexed as

Controlled Clinical Trials as TopicHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsMortalityPatient DischargePredictive Value of TestsRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID23718698
PMCPMC4056089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.