Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31577691›Full record

ArticlePediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies2020

Performance of a Clinical Decision Support Tool to Identify PICU Patients at High Risk for Clinical Deterioration.

Maya Dewan, Naveen Muthu, Eric Shelov, Christopher P Bonafide, Patrick Brady, Daniela Davis, Eric S Kirkendall, Dana Niles, Robert M Sutton, Danielle Traynor and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Machine Learning-Based Pediatric Early Warning Score: Patient Outcomes in a Pre- Versus Post-Implementation Study, 2019-2023.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Maya DewanDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH.
Naveen MuthuDepartment of Pediatrics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
Eric ShelovDepartment of Pediatrics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
Christopher P BonafideDepartment of Pediatrics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
Patrick BradyDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH.
Daniela DavisDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Critical Care Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
Eric S KirkendallDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of Hospital Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH.
Dana NilesDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Critical Care Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
Robert M SuttonDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Critical Care Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
Danielle TraynorDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Critical Care Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
Ken TegtmeyerDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH.
Vinay NadkarniDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Critical Care Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.
Heather WolfeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Division of Critical Care Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.

Funding

AHRQ HHS K08 HS026975NICHD NIH HHS L40 HD085270
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the translation of a paper high-risk checklist for PICU patients at risk of clinical deterioration to an automated clinical decision support tool.

designRetrospective, observational cohort study of an automated clinical decision support tool, the PICU Warning Tool, adapted from a paper checklist to predict clinical deterioration events in PICU patients within 24 hours.

settingTwo quaternary care medical-surgical PICUs-The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. PATIENTS: The study included all patients admitted from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015, the year prior to the initiation of any focused situational awareness work at either institution.

interventionsWe replicated the predictions of the real-time PICU Warning Tool by retrospectively querying the institutional data warehouse to identify all patients that would have flagged as high-risk by the PICU Warning Tool for their index deterioration. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsThe primary exposure of interest was determination of high-risk status during PICU admission via the PICU Warning Tool. The primary outcome of interest was clinical deterioration event within 24 hours of a positive screen. The date and time of the deterioration event was used as the index time point. We evaluated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the performance of the PICU Warning Tool. There were 6,233 patients evaluated with 233 clinical deterioration events experienced by 154 individual patients. The positive predictive value of the PICU Warning Tool was 7.1% with a number needed to screen of 14 patients for each index clinical deterioration event. The most predictive of the individual criteria were elevated lactic acidosis, high mean airway pressure, and profound acidosis.

conclusionsPerformance of a clinical decision support translation of a paper-based tool showed inferior test characteristics. Improved feasibility of identification of high-risk patients using automated tools must be balanced with performance.

Indexed as

Clinical DeteriorationDecision Support Systems, ClinicalIntensive Care Units, PediatricCardiopulmonary ResuscitationChecklistChildElectronic Health RecordsHeart ArrestHospitalizationHospital Rapid Response TeamHumansRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID31577691
PMCPMC7007854

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.