Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38551135›Full record

Observational studyHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2024

Prehospital early warning scores for adults with suspected sepsis: the PHEWS observational cohort and decision-analytic modelling study.

Steve Goodacre, Laura Sutton, Kate Ennis, Ben Thomas, Olivia Hawksworth, Khurram Iftikhar, Susan J Croft, Gordon Fuller, Simon Waterhouse, Daniel Hind and 8 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

18 authors.

Steve GoodacreSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0803-8444
Laura SuttonSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3327-5927
Kate EnnisSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4284-217X
Ben ThomasSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6659-6930
Olivia HawksworthSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6513-100X
Khurram IftikharEmergency Department, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9721-6232
Susan J CroftEmergency Department, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4190-2599
Gordon FullerEmergency Department, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8532-3500
Simon WaterhouseSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6303-9610
Daniel HindSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6409-4793
Matt StevensonSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3099-9877
Mike J BradburnSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3783-9761
Michael SmythWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0220-2223
Gavin D PerkinsWarwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3027-7548
Mark MillinsYorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Wakefield, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3065-0330
Andy RosserWest Midlands Ambulance Service University NHS Foundation Trust, Midlands, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5477-4269
Jon DicksonAcademic Unit of Primary Medical Care, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1361-2714
Matthew WilsonSchool of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9704-5189

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Guidelines for sepsis recommend treating those at highest risk within 1 hour. The emergency care system can only achieve this if sepsis is recognised and prioritised. Ambulance services can use prehospital early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to prioritise patients for treatment or early assessment in the emergency department. Objectives: To determine the accuracy, impact and cost-effectiveness of using early warning scores alongside paramedic diagnostic impression to identify sepsis requiring urgent treatment. Design: Retrospective diagnostic cohort study and decision-analytic modelling of operational consequences and cost-effectiveness. Setting: Two ambulance services and four acute hospitals in England. Participants: Adults transported to hospital by emergency ambulance, excluding episodes with injury, mental health problems, cardiac arrest, direct transfer to specialist services, or no vital signs recorded. Interventions: Twenty-one early warning scores used alongside paramedic diagnostic impression, categorised as sepsis, infection, non-specific presentation, or other specific presentation. Main outcome measures: Proportion of cases prioritised at the four hospitals; diagnostic accuracy for the sepsis-3 definition of sepsis and receiving urgent treatment (primary reference standard); daily number of cases with and without sepsis prioritised at a large and a small hospital; the minimum treatment effect associated with prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective, compared to no prioritisation, assuming willingness to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Data from 95,022 episodes involving 71,204 patients across four hospitals showed that most early warning scores operating at their pre-specified thresholds would prioritise more than 10% of cases when applied to non-specific attendances or all attendances. Data from 12,870 episodes at one hospital identified 348 (2.7%) with the primary reference standard. The National Early Warning Score, version 2 (NEWS2), had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve when applied only to patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection (0.756, 95% confidence interval 0.729 to 0.783) or sepsis alone (0.655, 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.68). None of the strategies provided high sensitivity (> 0.8) with acceptable positive predictive value (> 0.15). NEWS2 provided combinations of sensitivity and specificity that were similar or superior to all other early warning scores. Applying NEWS2 to paramedic diagnostic impression of sepsis or infection with thresholds of > 4, > 6 and > 8 respectively provided sensitivities and positive predictive values (95% confidence interval) of 0.522 (0.469 to 0.574) and 0.216 (0.189 to 0.245), 0.447 (0.395 to 0.499) and 0.274 (0.239 to 0.313), and 0.314 (0.268 to 0.365) and 0.333 (confidence interval 0.284 to 0.386). The mortality relative risk reduction from prioritisation at which each strategy would be cost-effective exceeded 0.975 for all strategies analysed. Limitations: We estimated accuracy using a sample of older patients at one hospital. Reliable evidence was not available to estimate the effectiveness of prioritisation in the decision-analytic modelling. Conclusions: No strategy is ideal but using NEWS2, in patients with a paramedic diagnostic impression of infection or sepsis could identify one-third to half of sepsis cases without prioritising unmanageable numbers. No other score provided clearly superior accuracy to NEWS2. Research is needed to develop better definition, diagnosis and treatments for sepsis. Study registration: This study is registered as Research Registry (reference: researchregistry5268). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/136/10) and is published in full in

Indexed as

Early Warning ScoreEmergency Medical ServicesSepsisAdultCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansRetrospective StudiesADULTAMBULANCESCOHORT STUDIESCONFIDENCE INTERVALSEARLY WARNING SCORESEMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICESHUMANSORGAN DYSFUNCTION SCOREPARAMEDICSQUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE-YEARSREFERENCE STANDARDSRETROSPECTIVE STUDIESRISKROC CURVESEPSISTRIAGE

Identifiers

PMID38551135
PMCPMC11017155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.