ArticleBMJ open2015
A protocol for developing early warning score models from vital signs data in hospitals using ensembles of decision trees.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Early warning score validation methodologies and performance metrics: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2020Pooled it
- RETRACTED: Artificial intelligence for emergency medical care.Health care science · 2025Review
- Development and Comparative Performance of Physiologic Monitoring Strategies in the Emergency Department.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Analysis of the early warning score to detect critical or high-risk patients in the prehospital setting.Internal and emergency medicine · 2019Observational
- Advancing In-Hospital Clinical Deterioration Prediction Models.American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses · 2018Article
- A critical assessment of early warning score records in 168,000 patients.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2018Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMultiple early warning scores (EWS) have been developed and implemented to reduce cardiac arrests on hospital wards. Case-control observational studies that generate an area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) are the usual validation method, but investigators have also generated EWS with algorithms with no prior clinical knowledge. We present a protocol for the validation and comparison of our local Hamilton Early Warning Score (HEWS) with that generated using decision tree (DT) methods. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A database of electronically recorded vital signs from 4 medical and 4 surgical wards will be used to generate DT EWS (DT-HEWS). A third EWS will be generated using ensemble-based methods. Missing data will be multiple imputed. For a relative risk reduction of 50% in our composite outcome (cardiac or respiratory arrest, unanticipated intensive care unit (ICU) admission or hospital death) with a power of 80%, we calculated a sample size of 17,151 patient days based on our cardiac arrest rates in 2012. The performance of the National EWS, DT-HEWS and the ensemble EWS will be compared using AUROC. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was received from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (#13-724-C). The vital signs and associated outcomes are stored in a database on our secure hospital server. Preliminary dissemination of this protocol was presented in abstract form at an international critical care meeting. Final results of this analysis will be used to improve on the existing HEWS and will be shared through publication and presentation at critical care meetings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.