Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36123094›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Protocol describing a systematic review and mixed methods consensus process to define the deteriorated ward patient.

James Malycha, Chris Andersen, Oliver C Redfern, Sandra Peake, Christian Subbe, Lukah Dykes, Adam Phillips, Guy Ludbrook, Duncan Young, Peter J Watkinson and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Intensive care unit admission criteria: a scoping review.Journal of the Intensive Care Society · 2024
    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.

James MalychaIntensive Care Unit, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville South, South Australia, Australia james.malycha@sa.gov.au.ORCID 0000-0002-9668-1431
Chris AndersenCritical Care Program, The George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, New South Wales, Australia.
Oliver C RedfernKadoorie Centre for Critical Care Research and Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Sandra PeakeIntensive Care Unit, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Woodville South, South Australia, Australia.
Christian SubbeSchool of Medical Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3110-8888
Lukah DykesFlinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Adam PhillipsUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Guy LudbrookDepartment of Acute Care Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6925-4277
Duncan YoungKadoorie Centre for Critical Care Research and Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Peter J WatkinsonKadoorie Centre for Critical Care Research and Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1023-3927
Arthas FlabourisDepartment of Acute Care Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Daryl JonesIntensive Care Unit Austin Hospital, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMost patients admitted to hospital recover with treatments that can be administered on the general ward. A small but important group deteriorate however and require augmented organ support in areas with increased nursing to patient ratios. In observational studies evaluating this cohort, proxy outcomes such as unplanned intensive care unit admission, cardiac arrest and death are used. These outcome measures introduce subjectivity and variability, which in turn hinders the development and accuracy of the increasing numbers of electronic medical record (EMR) linked digital tools designed to predict clinical deterioration. Here, we describe a protocol for developing a new outcome measure using mixed methods to address these limitations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will undertake firstly, a systematic literature review to identify existing generic, syndrome-specific and organ-specific definitions for clinically deteriorated, hospitalised adult patients. Secondly, an international modified Delphi study to generate a short list of candidate definitions. Thirdly, a nominal group technique (NGT) (using a trained facilitator) will take a diverse group of stakeholders through a structured process to generate a consensus definition. The NGT process will be informed by the data generated from the first two stages. The definition(s) for the deteriorated ward patient will be readily extractable from the EMR. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has ethics approval (reference 16399) from the Central Adelaide Local Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee. Results generated from this study will be disseminated through publication and presentation at national and international scientific meetings.

Indexed as

HospitalizationHospitalsAdultConsensusConsensus Statements as TopicHumansIntensive Care UnitsResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicAdult intensive & critical careHealth informaticsHealth & safetyQuality in health careRisk management

Identifiers

PMID36123094
PMCPMC9486195

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.