Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30005671›Full record

Observational studyScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2018

Repeated vital sign measurements in the emergency department predict patient deterioration within 72 hours: a prospective observational study.

Vincent M Quinten, Matijs van Meurs, Tycho J Olgers, Judith M Vonk, Jack J M Ligtenberg, Jan C Ter Maaten

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

6 authors.

Vincent M QuintenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, HPC TA10, PO Box 30001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. v.m.quinten@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7770-9884
Matijs van MeursDepartment of Critical Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Tycho J OlgersDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, HPC TA10, PO Box 30001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Judith M VonkDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jack J M LigtenbergDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, HPC TA10, PO Box 30001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jan C Ter MaatenDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, HPC TA10, PO Box 30001, 9700 RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMore than one in five patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with (suspected) infection or sepsis deteriorate within 72 h from admission. Surprisingly little is known about vital signs in relation to deterioration, especially in the ED. The aim of our study was to determine whether repeated vital sign measurements in the ED can differentiate between patients who will deteriorate within 72 h and patients who will not deteriorate.

methodsWe performed a prospective observational study in patients presenting with (suspected) infection or sepsis to the ED of our tertiary care teaching hospital. Vital signs (heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate and body temperature) were measured in 30-min intervals during the first 3 h in the ED. Primary outcome was patient deterioration within 72 h from admission, defined as the development of acute kidney injury, liver failure, respiratory failure, intensive care unit admission or in-hospital mortality. We performed a logistic regression analysis using a base model including age, gender and comorbidities. Thereafter, we performed separate logistic regression analyses for each vital sign using the value at admission, the change over time and its variability. For each analysis, the odds ratios (OR) and area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) were calculated.

resultsIn total 106 (29.5%) of the 359 patients deteriorated within 72 h from admission. Within this timeframe, 18.3% of the patients with infection and 32.9% of the patients with sepsis at ED presentation deteriorated. Associated with deterioration were: age (OR: 1.02), history of diabetes (OR: 1.90), heart rate (OR: 1.01), MAP (OR: 0.96) and respiratory rate (OR: 1.05) at admission, changes over time of MAP (OR: 1.04) and respiratory rate (OR: 1.44) as well as the variability of the MAP (OR: 1.06). Repeated measurements of heart rate and body temperature were not associated with deterioration.

conclusionsRepeated vital sign measurements in the ED are better at identifying patients at risk for deterioration within 72 h from admission than single vital sign measurements at ED admission.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalAgedBody TemperatureFemaleHospitalizationHospital MortalityHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsOdds RatioProspective StudiesRespiratory RateSepsisTime FactorsVital SignsAccident & emergency medicinePatient deteriorationSepsisVital signs

Identifiers

PMID30005671
PMCPMC6045840

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.