ArticlePloS one2021
A physician-led medical emergency team increases the rate of medical interventions: A multicenter study in Korea.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccording to the rapid response system's team composition, responding teams were named as rapid response team (RRT), medical emergency team (MET), and critical care outreach. A RRT is often a nurse-led team, whereas a MET is a physician-led team that mainly plays the role of an efferent limb. As few multicenter studies have focused on physician-led METs, we comprehensively analyzed cases for which physician-led METs were activated.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed cases for which METs were activated. The study population consisted of subjects over 18 years of age who were admitted in the general ward from January 2016 to December 2017 in 9 tertiary teaching hospitals in Korea. The data on subjects' characteristics, activation causes, activation methods, performed interventions, in-hospital mortality, and intensive care unit (ICU) transfer after MET activation were collected and analyzed.
resultsIn this study, 12,767 cases were analyzed, excluding those without in-hospital mortality data. The subjects' median age was 67 years, and 70.4% of them were admitted to the medical department. The most common cause of MET activation was respiratory distress (35.1%), followed by shock (11.8%), and the most common underlying disease was solid cancer (39%). In 7,561 subjects (59.2%), the MET was activated using the screening system. The commonly performed procedures were arterial line insertion (17.9%), intubation (13.3%), and portable ultrasonography (13.0%). Subsequently, 29.4% of the subjects were transferred to the ICU, and 27.2% died during hospitalization.
conclusionsThis physician-led MET cohort showed relatively high rates of intervention, including arterial line insertion and portable ultrasonography, and low ICU transfer rates. We presume that MET detects deteriorating patients earlier using a screening system and begins ICU-level management at the patient's bedside without delay, eventually preventing the patient's condition from worsening and transfer to the ICU.
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.