Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25089847›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of respiratory and critical care medicine2014

Multicenter development and validation of a risk stratification tool for ward patients.

Matthew M Churpek, Trevor C Yuen, Christopher Winslow, Ari A Robicsek, David O Meltzer, Robert D Gibbons, Dana P Edelson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05893420 (A Rapid Diagnostic of Risk in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19, Sepsis, and Other High-Risk Conditions to Improve Outcomes and Critical Resource Allocation Using Machine Learning), which is not on this map. Cited by 136 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
136citing papers in PubMed, 7 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.

NCT05893420 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

A Rapid Diagnostic of Risk in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19, Sepsis, and Other High-Risk Conditions to Improve Outcomes and Critical Resource Allocation Using Machine Learning

TypeinterventionalSponsorAgileMD, Inc.Ran2024 to 2026Enrolled30,000ConditionsSepsis, Septicemia, Respiratory Failure, Hemodynamic InstabilityArmseCARTv5 clinical deterioration monitoring, Standard of care control
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

136 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Matthew M Churpek1 Department of Medicine and.
Trevor C Yuen
Christopher Winslow
Ari A Robicsek
David O Meltzer
Robert D Gibbons
Dana P Edelson

Funding

TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: CLINICAL TRIALSUL1RR024999 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI SOLWAY, JULIAN · 2007 to 2011
$25.3M
Research and Mentoring in Cost-effectiveness and Hospital-based Elder CareK24AG031326 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI MELTZER, DAVID O · 2008 to 2012
$906k
Predicting In-hospital Cardiac Arrest Using Electronic Health Record DataK08HL121080 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI CHURPEK, MATTHEW MICHAEL · 2014 to 2018
$751k
Strategies to Predict and Prevent In-Hospital Cardiac ArrestK23HL097157 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI EDELSON, DANA PERES · 2009 to 2013
$648k
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024999NHLBI NIH HHS K08 HL121080NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL097157NIA NIH HHS K24 AG031326
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleMost ward risk scores were created using subjective opinion in individual hospitals and only use vital signs.

objectivesTo develop and validate a risk score using commonly collected electronic health record data.

methodsAll patients hospitalized on the wards in five hospitals were included in this observational cohort study. Discrete-time survival analysis was used to predict the combined outcome of cardiac arrest (CA), intensive care unit (ICU) transfer, or death on the wards. Laboratory results, vital signs, and demographics were used as predictor variables. The model was developed in the first 60% of the data at each hospital and then validated in the remaining 40%. The final model was compared with the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the net reclassification index (NRI). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsA total of 269,999 patient admissions were included, with 424 CAs, 13,188 ICU transfers, and 2,840 deaths occurring during the study period. The derived model was more accurate than the MEWS in the validation dataset for all outcomes (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.83 vs. 0.71 for CA; 0.75 vs. 0.68 for ICU transfer; 0.93 vs. 0.88 for death; and 0.77 vs. 0.70 for the combined outcome; P value < 0.01 for all comparisons). This accuracy improvement was seen across all hospitals. The NRI for the electronic Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage compared with the MEWS was 0.28 (0.18-0.38), with a positive NRI of 0.19 (0.09-0.29) and a negative NRI of 0.09 (0.09-0.09).

conclusionsWe developed an accurate ward risk stratification tool using commonly collected electronic health record variables in a large multicenter dataset. Further study is needed to determine whether implementation in real-time would improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesDimensional Measurement AccuracyEarly DiagnosisFemaleHeart ArrestHospital Rapid Response TeamHumansInpatientsIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedModels, Statisticaldecision support techniquesearly diagnosisheart arresthospital rapid response teamstatistical models

Identifiers

PMID25089847
PMCPMC4214112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.