Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30121744›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2019

Impact of predictive analytics based on continuous cardiorespiratory monitoring in a surgical and trauma intensive care unit.

Caroline M Ruminski, Matthew T Clark, Douglas E Lake, Rebecca R Kitzmiller, Jessica Keim-Malpass, Matthew P Robertson, Theresa R Simons, J Randall Moorman, J Forrest Calland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Intelligent Clinical Decision Support.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A narrative review of heart rate and variability in sepsis.Annals of translational medicine · 2020
    Review
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

9 authors.

Caroline M RuminskiUniversity of Virginia School of Medicine, P.O. Box 800158, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA.
Matthew T ClarkAdvanced Medical Predictive Devices, Diagnostics, Displays (AMP3D), Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Douglas E LakeUniversity of Virginia School of Medicine, P.O. Box 800158, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA.
Rebecca R KitzmillerUniversity of North Carolina School of Nursing, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Jessica Keim-MalpassUniversity of Virginia School of Nursing, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Matthew P RobertsonUniversity of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Theresa R SimonsUniversity of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
J Randall MoormanUniversity of Virginia School of Medicine, P.O. Box 800158, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA. rm3h@virginia.edu.
J Forrest CallandUniversity of Virginia School of Medicine, P.O. Box 800158, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA.

Funding

Predictive Informatics Monitoring in the Neonatal Intensive Care UnitR01HD072071 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA · PI KAREN D FAIRCHILD, Brynne Archer Sullivan · 2014 to 2026
$7.6M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD072071
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predictive analytics monitoring, the use of patient data to provide continuous risk estimation of deterioration, is a promising new application of big data analytical techniques to the care of individual patients. We tested the hypothesis that continuous display of novel electronic risk visualization of respiratory and cardiovascular events would impact intensive care unit (ICU) patient outcomes. In an adult tertiary care surgical trauma ICU, we displayed risk estimation visualizations on a large monitor, but in the medical ICU in the same institution we did not. The risk estimates were based solely on analysis of continuous cardiorespiratory monitoring. We examined 4275 individual patient records within a 7 month time period preceding and following data display. We determined cases of septic shock, emergency intubation, hemorrhage, and death to compare rates per patient care pre-and post-implementation. Following implementation, the incidence of septic shock fell by half (p < 0.01 in a multivariate model that included age and APACHE) in the surgical trauma ICU, where the data were continuously on display, but by only 10% (p = NS) in the control Medical ICU. There were no significant changes in the other outcomes. Display of a predictive analytics monitor based on continuous cardiorespiratory monitoring was followed by a reduction in the rate of septic shock, even when controlling for age and APACHE score.

Indexed as

Intensive Care UnitsSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedAgedAPACHECritical CareFemaleHemorrhageHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMedical InformaticsMiddle AgedMonitoring, PhysiologicMultivariate AnalysisOutcome Assessment, Health CareRetrospective StudiesBig dataContinuous displayPredictive analytics monitoringSepsis

Identifiers

PMID30121744
PMCPMC9210030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.