ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2017
Evaluating performance of early warning indices to predict physiological instabilities.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of the Hypotension Prediction Index with non-invasive arterial pressure waveforms in non-cardiac surgical patients.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2021Trial
- Engaging clinicians early during the development of a graphical user display of an intelligent alerting system at the bedside.International journal of medical informatics · 2022Article
- Simulating Study Design Choice Effects on Observed Performance of Predictive Patient Monitoring Alarm Algorithms.... IEEE-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics. IEEE-EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics · 2021Article
- Technical considerations for evaluating clinical prediction indices: a case study for predicting code blue events with MEWS.Physiological measurement · 2021Article
- A framework to characterize the performance of early warning index alarm systems for patient monitoring.MethodsX · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient monitoring algorithms that analyze multiple features from physiological signals can produce an index that serves as a predictive or prognostic measure for a specific critical health event or physiological instability. Classical detection metrics such as sensitivity and positive predictive value are often used to evaluate new patient monitoring indices for such purposes, but since these metrics do not take into account the continuous nature of monitoring, the assessment of a warning system to notify a user of a critical health event remains incomplete. In this article, we present challenges of assessing the performance of new warning indices and propose a framework that provides a more complete characterization of warning index performance predicting a critical event that includes the timeliness of the warning. The framework considers 1) an assessment of the sensitivity to provide a notification within a meaningful time window, 2) the cumulative sensitivity leading up to an event, 3) characteristics on if the warning stays on until the event occurs once a warning has been activated, and 4) the distribution of warning times and the burden of additional warnings (e.g., false-alarm rate) throughout monitoring that may or may not be associated with the event of interest. Using an example from an experimental study of hemorrhage, we examine how this characterization can differentiate two warning systems in terms of timeliness of warnings and warning burden.
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.