ArticleResuscitation plus2020
NEWS2 versus a single-parameter system to identify critically ill medical patients in the emergency department.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 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.
- Comparison of the clinical characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) infected patients from a single hospitalist service.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Outcome prediction for patients assessed by the medical emergency team: a retrospective cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 2022Observational
- Prognostic scores and early management of septic patients in the emergency department of a secondary hospital: results of a retrospective study.BMC emergency medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Utility of National Early Warning Score 2 to risk-stratify coronavirus disease of 2019 patients in the emergency department: A retrospective cohort study.International journal of critical illness and injury scienceArticle
- Emergency department boarding time and in-hospital mortality: A prospective observational study.Turkish journal of emergency medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo test National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) versus a single-parameter system to identify critically ill general medical patients in the emergency department (ED), by 1) testing NEWS2s prediction of and association with primary outcome 'mortality' (hospital or 30 day) and secondary outcomes 'intensive care unit (ICU) admission' and 'critical care in ED' and 2) comparing this for different NEWS2 cut-offs and the single-parameter system in use.
methodsRegister-data on adult triage 1 and 2 patients with complete NEWS2 from 2015 and 2016 were retrieved. Prediction was assessed using area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve. Associations were analyzed using multiple logistic regression.
results1586 patients were included. NEWS2 showed poor prediction of 'mortality' (AUC 0.686, CI 0.633-0.739) and adequate prediction of 'ICU admission' (AUC 0.716, CI 0.690-0.742) and 'critical care in ED' (AUC 0.756, CI 0.732-0.780). It was strongly associated with all outcomes (all p<0.001). All NEWS2 cut-offs and the single-parameter system showed poor prediction of all outcomes (all AUCs <0.7). The single-parameter system had the strongest association with 'mortality' (OR 1.688, CI 1.052-2.708, p<0.05) and 'critical care in ED' (OR 3.267, CI 2.490-4.286, p<0.001). NEWS2 > 4 had the strongest association with 'ICU admission' (OR 2.339, CI 1.742-3.141, p<0.001).
conclusionFor identification in order to trigger a response in the ED, outcomes closest in time seem most clinically relevant. As such, the single-parameter system had acceptable performance. NEWS2 > 4 should be considered as an additional trigger due to its association with ICU admission.
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.