ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Shock Index: A Simple and Effective Clinical Adjunct in Predicting 60-Day Mortality in Advanced Cancer Patients at the Emergency Department.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utility of shock index for predicting severity of postpartum haemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Review
- Predicting risk of sepsis, comparison between machine learning methods: a case study of a Virginia hospital.European journal of medical research · 2022Article
- Shock Index Is a Validated Prediction Tool for the Short-Term Survival of Advanced Cancer Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Effects of growth trajectory of shock index within 24 h on the prognosis of patients with sepsis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Predicting in-hospital mortality in ICU patients with sepsis using gradient boosting decision tree.Medicine · 2021Observational
- Palliative and End-of-Life Care: More Work is Required.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deciding between palliative and overly aggressive therapies for advanced cancer patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with acute issues requires a prediction of their short-term survival. Various scoring systems have previously been studied in hospices or intensive care units, though they are unsuitable for use in the ED. We aim to examine the use of a shock index (SI) in predicting the 60-day survival of advanced cancer patients presenting to the ED. Identified high-risk patients and their families can then be counseled accordingly. Three hundred and five advanced cancer patients who presented to the EDs of three tertiary hospitals were recruited, and their data retrospectively analyzed. Relevant data regarding medical history and clinical presentation were extracted, and respective shock indices calculated. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted to evaluate the predictive performance of the SI. Nonsurvivors within 60 days had significantly lower body temperatures and blood pressure, as well as higher pulse rates, respiratory rates, and SI. Each 0.1 SI increment had an odds ratio of 1.39 with respect to 60-day mortality. The area under the ROC curve was 0.7511. At the optimal cut-off point of 0.94, the SI had 81.38% sensitivity and 73.11% accuracy. This makes the SI an ideal evaluation tool for rapidly predicting the 60-day mortality risk of advanced cancer patients presenting to the ED. Identified patients can be counseled accordingly, and they can be assisted in making informed decisions on the appropriate treatment goals reflective of their prognoses.
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.