Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34264983›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2021

A clinical prediction model to identify children at risk for revisits with serious illness to the emergency department: A prospective multicentre observational study.

Ruud G Nijman, Dorine H Borensztajn, Joany M Zachariasse, Carine Hajema, Paulo Freitas, Susanne Greber-Platzer, Frank J Smit, Claudio F Alves, Johan van der Lei, Ewout W Steyerberg and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

12 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Ruud G NijmanDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Section of Paediatric Infectious Diseases, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9671-8161
Dorine H BorensztajnDepartment of General Paediatrics, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-2437-0757
Joany M ZachariasseDepartment of General Paediatrics, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4093-8509
Carine HajemaDepartment of General Paediatrics, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Paulo FreitasIntensive Care Unit, Hospital Prof. Dr. Fernando Fonseca, Lisbon, Portugal.
Susanne Greber-PlatzerDepartment of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-3706-8370
Frank J SmitDepartment of Paediatrics, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4152-8624
Claudio F AlvesDepartment of Paediatrics, Hospital Prof. Dr. Fernando Fonseca, Lisbon, Portugal.
Johan van der LeiDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus MC- University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Medical Statistics and Bioinformatics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ian K MaconochieDepartment of Paediatric Emergency Medicine, St Mary's Hospital-Imperial College NHS Healthcare Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6319-8550
Henriette A MollDepartment of General Paediatrics, Erasmus MC-Sophia Children's Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9304-3322
Erasmus MC - Sophia Children’s Hospital · NLHospital Prof. Dr. Fernando Fonseca · PTImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBErasmus MC · NLLeiden University · NLMaasstad Ziekenhuis · NLMedical University of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo develop a clinical prediction model to identify children at risk for revisits with serious illness to the emergency department. METHODS AND

findingsA secondary analysis of a prospective multicentre observational study in five European EDs (the TRIAGE study), including consecutive children aged <16 years who were discharged following their initial ED visit ('index' visit), in 2012-2015. Standardised data on patient characteristics, Manchester Triage System urgency classification, vital signs, clinical interventions and procedures were collected. The outcome measure was serious illness defined as hospital admission or PICU admission or death in ED after an unplanned revisit within 7 days of the index visit. Prediction models were developed using multivariable logistic regression using characteristics of the index visit to predict the likelihood of a revisit with a serious illness. The clinical model included day and time of presentation, season, age, gender, presenting problem, triage urgency, and vital signs. An extended model added laboratory investigations, imaging, and intravenous medications. Cross validation between the five sites was performed, and discrimination and calibration were assessed using random effects models. A digital calculator was constructed for clinical implementation. 7,891 children out of 98,561 children had a revisit to the ED (8.0%), of whom 1,026 children (1.0%) returned to the ED with a serious illness. Rates of revisits with serious illness varied between the hospitals (range 0.7-2.2%). The clinical model had a summary Area under the operating curve (AUC) of 0.70 (95% CI 0.65-0.74) and summary calibration slope of 0.83 (95% CI 0.67-0.99). 4,433 children (5%) had a risk of > = 3%, which was useful for ruling in a revisit with serious illness, with positive likelihood ratio 4.41 (95% CI 3.87-5.01) and specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.96). 37,546 (39%) had a risk <0.5%, which was useful for ruling out a revisit with serious illness (negative likelihood ratio 0.30 (95% CI 0.25-0.35), sensitivity 0.88 (95% CI 0.86-0.90)). The extended model had an improved summary AUC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.75) and summary calibration slope of 0.84 (95% CI 0.71-0.97). As study limitations, variables on ethnicity and social deprivation could not be included, and only return visits to the original hospital and not to those of surrounding hospitals were recorded.

conclusionWe developed a prediction model and a digital calculator which can aid physicians identifying those children at highest and lowest risks for developing a serious illness after initial discharge from the ED, allowing for more targeted safety netting advice and follow-up.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalTriageAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalePatient ReadmissionProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID34264983
PMCPMC8281990
OpenAlexW3182846908

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.