Observational studyScientific reports2022
The association between prehospital vital signs of children and their critical clinical outcomes at hospitals.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2022. 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.
- Evaluating age-based vital sign cutoffs for pediatric trauma: a multicenter evaluation of the Japanese trauma data bank.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Article
- Critical interventions, diagnosis, and mortality in children treated by a physician-manned mobile emergency care unit.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Mortality after paediatric emergency calls for patients with or without pre-existing comorbidity: a nationwide population based cohort study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Prehospital vital sign monitoring in paediatric patients: an interregional study of educational interventions.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vital signs are important for patient assessment, but little is known about interpreting those of children in prehospital settings. We conducted an observational study to investigate the association between prehospital vital signs of children and their clinical outcomes in hospitals. We plotted the data of patients with critical outcomes on published reference ranges, such as those of healthy children to evaluate the clinical relevance. Of the 18,493 children screened, 4477 transported to tertiary hospitals were included in the analysis. The outcomes 12 h after being transported to a tertiary hospital were as follows: deceased, 41; hospitalization with critical deterioration events, 65; hospitalization without critical deterioration events, 1086; returned home, 3090; and unknown, 195. The reference ranges of the heart rates (sensitivity: 57.7%, specificity: 67.5%) and respiratory rates (sensitivity: 54.5%, specificity: 67.7%) of healthy children worked best to detect the critical outcomes. Therefore, the reference ranges of healthy children were concluded to be suitable in prehospital settings; however, excessive reliance on vital signs carried potential risks due to their limited sensitivities and specificities. Future studies are warranted to investigate indicators with higher sensitivities and specificities.
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.