ReviewArchives of academic emergency medicine2021
The Value of Physiological Scoring Criteria in Predicting the In-Hospital Mortality of Acute Patients; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physiological scoring systems for early identification of critically ill older adults in the emergency department: a prospective observational cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Observational
- An Overview of Published Articles inArchives of academic emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Glasgow Coma Scale Versus Physiologic Scoring Systems in Predicting the Outcome of ICU admitted Trauma Patients; a Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Predicting the 28-Day Mortality of Non-Trauma Patients using REMS and RAPS; a Prognostic Accuracy Study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is no comprehensive meta-analysis on the value of physiological scoring systems in predicting the mortality of critically ill patients. Therefore, the present study intended to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to collect the available clinical evidence on the value of physiological scoring systems in predicting the in-hospital mortality of acute patients.
methodAn extensive search was performed on Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases until the end of year 2020. Physiological models included Rapid Acute Physiology Score (RAPS), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), modified REMS (mREMS), and Worthing Physiological Score (WPS). Finally, the data were summarized and the findings were presented as summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC), sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR).
resultsData from 25 articles were included. The overall analysis showed that the area under the SROC curve of REMS, RAPS, mREMS, and WPS criteria were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.79-0.86), 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.92), 0.64 (95% CI: 0.60-0.68) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89), respectively. DOR for REMS, RAPS, mREMS and WPS models were 11 (95% CI: 8-16), 13 (95% CI: 4-41), 2 (95% CI: 2-4) and 17 (95% CI: 5-59) respectively. When analyses were limited to trauma patients, the DOR of the REMS and RAPS models were 112 and 431, respectively. Due to the lack of sufficient studies, it was not possible to limit the analyses for mREMS and WPS.
conclusionThe findings of the present study showed that three models of RAPS, REMS and WPS have a high predictive value for in-hospital mortality. In addition, the value of these models in trauma patients is much higher than other patient settings.
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.