Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32671347›Full record

ArticleCritical care explorations2020

Early Detection of In-Patient Deterioration: One Prediction Model Does Not Fit All.

Jacob N Blackwell, Jessica Keim-Malpass, Matthew T Clark, Rebecca L Kowalski, Salim N Najjar, Jamieson M Bourque, Douglas E Lake, J Randall Moorman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care explorations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Jacob N BlackwellDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Jessica Keim-MalpassDepartment of Acute and Specialty Care, University of Virginia School of Nursing Charlottesville, VA.
Matthew T ClarkAMP3D, Charlottesville, VA.
Rebecca L KowalskiDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Salim N NajjarDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Jamieson M BourqueDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Douglas E LakeDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
J Randall MoormanDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesEarly detection of subacute potentially catastrophic illnesses using available data is a clinical imperative, and scores that report risk of imminent events in real time abound. Patients deteriorate for a variety of reasons, and it is unlikely that a single predictor such as an abnormal National Early Warning Score will detect all of them equally well. The objective of this study was to test the idea that the diversity of reasons for clinical deterioration leading to ICU transfer mandates multiple targeted predictive models.

designIndividual chart review to determine the clinical reason for ICU transfer; determination of relative risks of individual vital signs, laboratory tests and cardiorespiratory monitoring measures for prediction of each clinical reason for ICU transfer; and logistic regression modeling for the outcome of ICU transfer for a specific clinical reason.

settingCardiac medical-surgical ward; tertiary care academic hospital. PATIENTS: Eight-thousand one-hundred eleven adult patients, 457 of whom were transferred to an ICU for clinical deterioration.

interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsWe calculated the contributing relative risks of individual vital signs, laboratory tests and cardiorespiratory monitoring measures for prediction of each clinical reason for ICU transfer, and used logistic regression modeling to calculate receiver operating characteristic areas and relative risks for the outcome of ICU transfer for a specific clinical reason. The reasons for clinical deterioration leading to ICU transfer were varied, as were their predictors. For example, the three most common reasons-respiratory instability, infection and suspected sepsis, and heart failure requiring escalated therapy-had distinct signatures of illness. Statistical models trained to target-specific reasons for ICU transfer performed better than one model targeting combined events.

conclusionsA single predictive model for clinical deterioration does not perform as well as having multiple models trained for the individual specific clinical events leading to ICU transfer.

Indexed as

clinical computingcontinuous predictive analytics monitoringcritical caredeteriorationintensive care unit transferpredictive analytics

Identifiers

PMID32671347
PMCPMC7259568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.