ArticleResuscitation plus2024
Impact of dynamic parameter of trends in vital signs on the prediction of serious events in hospitalized patients -a retrospective observational study.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2024. 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.
- Prediction of acute kidney injury in patients with acute pesticide poisoning using the PKIP score.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating a ballistocardiography derived respiratory rate algorithm through comprehensive clinical validation across multiple settings.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Predicting In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Using Machine Learning Models: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Author's Reply: A Machine Learning Model for Predicting Short-Term Outcomes After Rapid Response System Activation.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Although early detection of patients' deterioration may improve outcomes, most of the detection criteria use on-the-spot values of vital signs. We investigated whether adding trend values over time enhanced the ability to predict adverse events among hospitalized patients. Methods: Patients who experienced adverse events, such as unexpected cardiac arrest or unplanned ICU admission were enrolled in this retrospective study. The association between the events and the combination of vital signs was evaluated at the time of the worst vital signs 0-8 hours before events (near the event) and at 24-48 hours before events (baseline). Multivariable logistic analysis was performed, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to assess the prediction power for adverse events among various combinations of vital sign parameters. Results: Among 24,509 in-patients, 54 patients experienced adverse events(cases) and 3,116 control patients eligible for data analysis were included. At the timepoint near the event, systolic blood pressure (SBP) was lower, heart rate (HR) and respiratory rate (RR) were higher in the case group, and this tendency was also observed at baseline. The AUC for event occurrence with reference to SBP, HR, and RR was lower when evaluated at baseline than at the timepoint near the event (0.85 [95%CI: 0.79-0.92] vs. 0.93 [0.88-0.97]). When the trend in RR was added to the formula constructed of baseline values of SBP, HR, and RR, the AUC increased to 0.92 [0.87-0.97]. Conclusion: Trends in RR may enhance the accuracy of predicting adverse events in hospitalized patients.
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.