Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25888322›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2015

A simple prognostic index based on admission vital signs data among patients with sepsis in a resource-limited setting.

Stephen B Asiimwe, Amir Abdallah, Richard Ssekitoleko

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Current epidemiology of sepsis in mainland China.Annals of translational medicine · 2016
    Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Stephen B AsiimweDepartment of Medicine, Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital, P.O. Box 40, Mbarara, Uganda. asiimwesteve@gmail.com.
Amir AbdallahDepartment of Medicine, Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital, P.O. Box 40, Mbarara, Uganda. dr.amir83@yahoo.co.uk.
Richard SsekitolekoDepartment of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7072, Kampala, Uganda. sekirchrd@yahoo.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn sub-Saharan Africa, vital signs are a feasible option for monitoring critically ill patients. We assessed how admission vital signs data predict in-hospital mortality among patients with sepsis. In particular, we assessed whether vital signs data can be incorporated into a prognostic index with reduced segmentation in the values of included variables.

methodsSubjects were patients with sepsis hospitalized in Uganda, who participated in two cohort studies. Using restricted cubic splines of admission vital signs data, we predicted probability of in-hospital death in the development cohort and used this information to construct a simple prognostic index. We assessed the performance of the index in a validation cohort and compared its performance to that of the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS).

resultsWe included 317 patients (167 in the development cohort and 150 in the validation cohort). Based on how vital signs predicted mortality, we created a prognostic index giving a score of 1 for: respiratory rates ≥30 cycles/minute; pulse rates ≥100 beats/minute; mean arterial pressures ≥110/<70 mmHg; temperatures ≥38.6/<35.6°C; and presence of altered mental state defined as Glasgow coma score ≤14; 0 for all other values. The proposed index (maximum score = 5) predicted mortality comparably to MEWS. Patients scoring ≥3 on the index were 3.4-fold (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 7.3, P = 0.001) and 2.3-fold (95% CI 1.1 to 4.7, P = 0.031) as likely to die in hospital as those scoring 0 to 2 in the development and validation cohorts respectively; those scoring ≥5 on MEWS were 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.2 to 5.3, P = 0.017) and 1.8-fold (95% CI 0.74 to 4.2, P = 0.204) as likely to die as those scoring 0 to 4 in the development and validation cohorts respectively.

conclusionAmong patients with sepsis, a prognostic index incorporating admission vital signs data with reduced segmentation in the values of included variables adequately predicted mortality. Such an index may be more easily implemented when triaging acutely-ill patients. Future studies using a similar approach may develop indexes that can be used to monitor treatment among acutely-ill patients, especially in resource-limited settings.

Indexed as

Hospital MortalityAdultCritical IllnessFemaleHealth ResourcesHumansMaleMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicPrognosisProspective StudiesSepsisUgandaVital Signs

Identifiers

PMID25888322
PMCPMC4360926

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.