Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24706596›Full record

Trial reportJournal of hospital medicine2014

A randomized trial of real-time automated clinical deterioration alerts sent to a rapid response team.

Marin H Kollef, Yixin Chen, Kevin Heard, Gina N LaRossa, Chenyang Lu, Nathan R Martin, Nelda Martin, Scott T Micek, Thomas Bailey

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of hospital medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Clinical evaluation of a machine learning-based early warning system for patient deterioration.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Marin H KollefDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri.
Yixin Chen
Kevin Heard
Gina N LaRossa
Chenyang Lu
Nathan R Martin
Nelda Martin
Scott T Micek
Thomas Bailey

Funding

Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (UL1)UL1RR024992 · NCRR · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2007 to 2011
$45.4M
Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesUL1TR000448 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000448NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024992
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpisodes of patient deterioration on hospital units are expected to increasingly contribute to morbidity and healthcare costs.

objectiveTo determine if real-time alerts sent to the rapid response team (RRT) improved patient care.

designRandomized, controlled trial.

settingEight medicine units (Barnes-Jewish Hospital). PATIENTS: Five hundred seventy-one patients.

interventionReal-time alerts generated by a validated deterioration algorithm were sent real-time to the RRT (intervention) or hidden (control). MEASUREMENTS: Intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, hospital mortality, hospital duration.

resultsICU transfer (17.8% vs 18.2%; odds ratio: 0.972; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.635-1.490) and hospital mortality (7.3% vs 7.7%; odds ratio: 0.947; 95% CI: 0.509-1.764) were similar for the intervention and control groups. The number of patients requiring transfer to a nursing home or long-term acute care hospital was similar for patients in the intervention and control groups (26.9% vs 26.3%; odds ratio: 1.032; 95% CI: 0.712-1.495). Hospital duration (8.4 ± 9.5 days vs 9.4 ± 11.1 days; P = 0.038) was statistically shorter for the intervention group. The number of RRT calls initiated by the primary care team was similar for the intervention and control groups (19.9% vs 16.5%; odds ratio: 1.260; 95% CI: 0.823-1.931).

conclusionsReal-time alerts sent to the RRT did not reduce ICU transfers, hospital mortality, or the need for subsequent long term care. However, hospital length of stay was modestly reduced.

Indexed as

AgedComputer SystemsFemaleHospital MortalityHospital Rapid Response TeamHumansLength of StayMaleMedical Order Entry SystemsMiddle AgedPatient Care Team

Identifiers

PMID24706596
PMCPMC4354800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.