ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2020
Predicting outcome of patients with severe urinary tract infections admitted via the emergency department.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Predicting outcome of patients with severe urinary tract infections admitted via the emergency department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate clinical prediction tools for making decisions in patients with severe urinary tract infections (UTIs).
methodsThis was a retrospective study conducted at 2 hospitals (combined emergency department (ED) census 190,000). Study patients were admitted via the ED with acute pyelonephritis or severe sepsis-septic shock related UTI. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) augmented by decision curve analysis and sensitivity of each rule for predicting mortality and ICU admission were compared.
resultsThe AUROC of PRACTICE was greater than that of BOMBARD (0.15 difference, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.09-0.22), SIRS (0.21 difference, 95% CI = 0.14-0.28) and qSOFA (0.06 difference, 95% CI = 0-0.11) for predicting mortality. PRACTICE had a greater net benefit compared to BOMBARD and SIRS at all thresholds and a greater net benefit compared to qSOFA between a 1% and 10% threshold probability level for predicting mortality. PRACTICE had a greater net benefit compared to all other scores for predicting ICU admission across all threshold probabilities. A PRACTICE score >75 was more sensitive than a qSOFA score >1 (90% versus 54.3%, 35.7 difference, 95% CI = 24.5-46.9), SIRS criteria >1 (18.6 difference, 95% CI = 9.5-27.7), and a BOMBARD score >2 (12.9 difference, 95% CI = 5-12.9) for predicting mortality.
conclusionPRACTICE was more accurate than BOMBARD, SIRS, and qSOFA for predicting mortality. PRACTICE had a superior net benefit at most thresholds compared to other scores for predicting mortality and ICU admissions.
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.