Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36864863›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2022

Modified Early Warning Score vs Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage Score for Prediction of Cardiopulmonary Arrest: A Case-Control Study.

Armand Delo Antone Tan, Chito Caimoy Permejo, Ma Consolacion Dolor Torres

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Exercise in Futility or do CART or MEWS Prevent Errors?Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2022
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Armand Delo Antone TanDepartment of Adult Cardiology, Philippine Heart Center, Quezon City, Philippines.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2440-8345
Chito Caimoy PermejoCritical Care Medicine Division, Department of Ambulatory, Emergency and Critical Care, Philippine Heart Center, Quezon City, Philippines.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0005-8072
Ma Consolacion Dolor TorresCritical Care Medicine Division, Department of Ambulatory, Emergency and Critical Care, Philippine Heart Center, Quezon City, Philippines.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0570-5814
Philippine Heart Center · PH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Delayed transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) contributes to increased mortality. Clinical tools, developed to shorten this delay, are especially useful in hospitals where the ideal healthcare provider-to-patient ratio is not met. This study aimed to validate and compare the accuracy of the well-accepted modified early warning score (MEWS) and the newer cardiac arrest risk triage (CART) score in the Philippine setting. Patients and methods: This case-control study involved 82 adult patients admitted to the Philippine Heart Center. Patients who had cardiopulmonary (CP) arrest at the wards and those transferred to the ICU were included. Vital signs and alert-verbal-pain-unresponsive (AVPU) scales were recorded from recruitment until 48 hours prior to CP arrest or ICU transfer. The MEWS and CART scores were computed at specific time points and compared using measures of validity. Results: The highest accuracy was obtained by the CART score with a cut-off of ≥12 at 8 hours prior to CP arrest or ICU transfer, with a specificity of 80.43% and sensitivity of 66.67%. At this time point, the MEWS with a cut-off of ≥3 had a specificity of 78.26% but a lower sensitivity of 58.33%. The area under the curve (AUC) analysis revealed that these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: We recommend an MEWS threshold of 3 and a CART score threshold of 12 to help identify patients at risk for clinical deterioration. The CART score had comparable accuracy to the MEWS, but the latter's computation may be easier. How to cite this article: Tan ADA, Permejo CC, Torres MCD. Modified Early Warning Score vs Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage Score for Prediction of Cardiopulmonary Arrest: A Case-Control Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(7):780-785.

Indexed as

Cardiac arrestCritical careEarly warning scoreRapid response team

Identifiers

PMID36864863
PMCPMC9973173
OpenAlexW4283728842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.