Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23732586›Full record

ReviewChest2013

Risk stratification of hospitalized patients on the wards.

Matthew M Churpek, Trevor C Yuen, Dana P Edelson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chest, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

67 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Modified Early Warning Score vs Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage Score for Prediction of Cardiopulmonary Arrest: A Case-Control Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2022
    Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Matthew M ChurpekSection of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL; Health Studies Department, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Trevor C YuenSection of Hospital Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Dana P EdelsonSection of Hospital Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: dperes@uchicago.edu.

Funding

RESEARCH TRAINING IN RESPIRATORY BIOLOGYT32HL007605 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI Yun Fang, Gokhan M. Mutlu · 1985 to 2026
$18.1M
Strategies to Predict and Prevent In-Hospital Cardiac ArrestK23HL097157 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI EDELSON, DANA PERES · 2009 to 2013
$648k
NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL097157NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL097157-01NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007605NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL 07605
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients who suffer adverse events on the wards, such as cardiac arrest and death, often have vital sign abnormalities hours before the event. Early warning scores have been developed with the aim of identifying clinical deterioration early and have been recommended by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. In this review, we discuss recently developed and validated risk scores for use on the general inpatient wards. In addition, we compare newly developed systems with more established risk scores such as the Modified Early Warning Score and the criteria used in the Medical Early Response Intervention and Therapy (MERIT) trial in our database of > 59,000 ward admissions. In general we found the single-parameter systems, such as the MERIT criteria, to have the lowest predictive accuracy for adverse events, whereas the aggregate weighted scoring systems had the highest. The Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage (CART) score was best for predicting cardiac arrest, ICU transfer, and a composite outcome (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.83, 0.77, and 0.78, respectively), whereas the Standardized Early Warning Score, VitalPAC Early Warning Score, and CART score were similar for predicting mortality (AUC, 0.88). Selection of a risk score for a hospital or health-care system should be guided by available variables, calculation method, and system resources. Once implemented, ensuring high levels of adherence and tying them to specific levels of interventions, such as activation of a rapid response team, are necessary to allow for the greatest potential to improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

InpatientsHealth Status IndicatorsHospital Rapid Response TeamHumansModels, StatisticalMonitoring, PhysiologicPrecipitating FactorsPredictive Value of TestsRisk AssessmentSensitivity and SpecificityTriageVital Signs

Identifiers

PMID23732586
PMCPMC3673668

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.