ArticleCureus2023
Clinical Study of a New Modified Early Warning Scoring System for Rapidly Evaluating Shock in Adults.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Shock index and early warning score in liver cancer rupture shock.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- Application of Modified Early Warning Score System (MEWS) in the Assessment of Disease Condition and Prognosis of Patients After Neurosurgical Procedure or Intervention.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- 21st century critical care medicine: An overview.World journal of critical care medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShock is one of the most common severe syndromes requiring emergency treatment. Acute myocardial infarction guidelines, the surviving sepsis campaign, and low blood volume resuscitation guidelines indicate the prioritization of early identification of shock. APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II), SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment), and MEWS (Modified Early Warning System) scores are used to predict mortality in ICU (intensive care unit) patients. However, similar to APACHE II, SOFA cannot be used for rapid assessment. Hence the need for a new scoring system that is simple, faster, and efficacious in predicting and preventing mortality among shock patients. The present study was conducted to evaluate a new MEWS scoring system for early identification and estimate mortality risk in patients with shock.
methodsA total of 170 patients with shock meeting the inclusion criteria who presented to the ICU of Ramaiah Hospitals from November 2019 to August 2021 were included in the study. Baseline variables, laboratory parameters, APACHE II score, SOFA score, MEWS score, and new MEWS score were compared between the two groups. Patients were followed up till mortality or discharge from ICU.
resultsAmong the 170 patients included in the study septic shock (69.4%) was the most common type of shock followed by cardiogenic (7.64%) and hypovolemic shock (7.64%). The requirement of inotropic support and mechanical ventilation was associated with significantly higher mortality (55.6% and 52.6% respectively). The AUROC (area under the curve) for SOFA in predicting mortality was 0.738 (p<0.001). The AUROC for APACHE II score in predicting mortality was 0.758 (p<0.001). The AUROC for MEWS score in predicting mortality was 0.655 (p=0.0002). The AUROC for the new MEWS score in predicting mortality was 0.684 which is more than that of the conventional MEWS score (p <0.001).
conclusionNew MEWS score is better than the MEWS score in predicting mortality. The new MEWS score is a simple, entirely clinical, inexpensive scoring system that can be done within a short time as a patient contact in an emergency. Hence, the new MEWS score can help in the quick identification of patients who are at high risk for developing shock and can be used as a better predictor of mortality.
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.