Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34591017›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical Internet research2021

Predicting Patient Deterioration: A Review of Tools in the Digital Hospital Setting.

Kay D Mann, Norm M Good, Farhad Fatehi, Sankalp Khanna, Victoria Campbell, Roger Conway, Clair Sullivan, Andrew Staib, Christopher Joyce, David Cook

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Mortality risk ranking after medical emergency team review: External validation and redevelopment of predictive models.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Kay D MannThe Australian e-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0115-5293
Norm M GoodThe Australian e-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6446-7644
Farhad FatehiCentre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9888-1966
Sankalp KhannaThe Australian e-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6125-8871
Victoria CampbellSunshine Coast University Hospital, Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service, Birtinya, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9846-9410
Roger ConwaySunshine Coast University Hospital, Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service, Birtinya, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9100-6229
Clair SullivanCentre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2475-9989
Andrew StaibClinical Excellence Queensland, Queensland Health, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2260-4142
Christopher JoycePrincess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7819-3373
David CookPrincess Alexandra Hospital, Metro South Hospital and Health Service, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9761-0179

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly warning tools identify patients at risk of deterioration in hospitals. Electronic medical records in hospitals offer real-time data and the opportunity to automate early warning tools and provide real-time, dynamic risk estimates.

objectiveThis review describes published studies on the development, validation, and implementation of tools for predicting patient deterioration in general wards in hospitals.

methodsAn electronic database search of peer reviewed journal papers from 2008-2020 identified studies reporting the use of tools and algorithms for predicting patient deterioration, defined by unplanned transfer to the intensive care unit, cardiac arrest, or death. Studies conducted solely in intensive care units, emergency departments, or single diagnosis patient groups were excluded.

resultsA total of 46 publications were eligible for inclusion. These publications were heterogeneous in design, setting, and outcome measures. Most studies were retrospective studies using cohort data to develop, validate, or statistically evaluate prediction tools. The tools consisted of early warning, screening, or scoring systems based on physiologic data, as well as more complex algorithms developed to better represent real-time data, deal with complexities of longitudinal data, and warn of deterioration risk earlier. Only a few studies detailed the results of the implementation of deterioration warning tools.

conclusionsDespite relative progress in the development of algorithms to predict patient deterioration, the literature has not shown that the deployment or implementation of such algorithms is reproducibly associated with improvements in patient outcomes. Further work is needed to realize the potential of automated predictions and update dynamic risk estimates as part of an operational early warning system for inpatient deterioration.

Indexed as

Heart ArrestIntensive Care UnitsElectronic Health RecordsHospitalsHumansRetrospective Studiesdigital toolsearly warning scoreselectronic medical recordpatient deteriorationvital signs

Identifiers

PMID34591017
PMCPMC8517822

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.