Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39224425›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2024

Intensive care unit admission criteria: a scoping review.

James Soares, Catherine Leung, Victoria Campbell, Anton Van Der Vegt, James Malycha, Christopher Andersen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

James SoaresDepartment of Intensive Care, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8925-4500
Catherine LeungDepartment of Intensive Care, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Victoria CampbellSchool of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Sunshine Coast, QLD, Australia.
Anton Van Der VegtCentre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, Prince Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
James MalychaThe Central Adelaide Local Health Network Critical Care Department, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Christopher AndersenDepartment of Intensive Care, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Effectively identifying deteriorated patients is vital to the development and validation of automated systems designed to predict clinical deterioration. Existing outcome measures used for this purpose have significant limitations. Published criteria for admission to high acuity inpatient areas may represent markers of patient deterioration and could inform the development of alternate outcome measures. Objectives: In this scoping review, we aimed to characterise published criteria for admission of adult inpatients to high acuity inpatient areas including intensive care units. A secondary aim was to identify variables that are extractable from electronic health records (EHRs). Data sources: Electronic databases Charting methods: Data was extracted from each publication using a standardised data-charting form. Admission criteria characteristics were summarised and cross-tabulated for each criterion by population group. Results: Five domains were identified: diagnosis-based criteria, clinical parameter criteria, organ-support criteria, organ-monitoring criteria and patient baseline criteria. Six clinical parameter-based criteria and five needs-based criteria were frequently proposed and represent variables extractable from EHRs. Thresholds for objective clinical parameter criteria varied across publications, and by disease subgroup, and universal cut-offs for criteria could not be elucidated. Conclusions: This study identified multiple criteria which may represent markers of deterioration. Many of the criteria are extractable from the EHR, making them potential candidates for future automated systems. Variability in admission criteria and associated thresholds across the literature suggests clinical deterioration is a heterogeneous phenomenon which may resist being defined as a single entity via a consensus-driven process.

Indexed as

admission criteriadeteriorationIntensive care

Identifiers

PMID39224425
PMCPMC11366187

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.