ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2025
Rapid response system and mortality in intensive care unit: a nationwide cohort study in South Korea.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The beneficial effects of a rapid response system (RRS) on clinical outcomes in patients admitted to a ward have been established. However, the relationship between RRS implementation and clinical outcomes in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) has not yet been established. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether the RRS affects clinical outcomes in critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. As a nationwide, population-based cohort study, all adult patients who were admitted to the ICU from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2021 in South Korea were included. Patients in hospitals with an RRS formed the RRS group; those in hospitals lacking an RRS constituted the non-RRS group. In total, 900,606 patients admitted to the ICU were included in the final analysis. Among them, 365,305 (40.6%) were assigned to the RRS group, and 535,301 (59.4%) were assigned to the non-RRS group. After propensity score (PS) matching, a total of 454,748 patients (227,374 in each group) were included in the final analysis. In the PS-matched cohort, the RRS group showed 8% (odds ratio [OR]: 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91, 0.94; P < 0.001) and 11% (hazard ratio: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.88, 0.90; P < 0.001) lower in-hospital mortality rates and 1-year all-cause mortality rates than the non-RRS group, respectively. In addition, ICU readmission rates and the occurrence rate for adverse events during hospitalization in the RRS group were 3% (OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95, 0.98; P < 0.001) and 21% (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.78, 0.80; P < 0.001) lower than those in the non-RRS group, respectively. RRS deployment was linked to lower in-hospital and 1-year all-cause mortality rates, ICU readmission rates, and the occurrence of adverse events during hospitalization among ICU patients. The findings indicate that using the RRS could assist not only patients in the ward but also critically ill patients in the ICU.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39322787What 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.