Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39414696›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2024

Validation of MEWS, NEWS, NEWS-2 and qSOFA for different infection foci at the emergency department, the acutelines cohort.

Carolina Hincapié-Osorno, Raymond J van Wijk, Douwe F Postma, Jacqueline Koeze, Jan C Ter Maaten, Fabian Jaimes, Hjalmar R Bouma

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors.

Carolina Hincapié-OsornoDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. c.hincapie.osorno@umcg.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8582-1614
Raymond J van WijkDepartment of Acute Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2106-7699
Douwe F PostmaDepartment of Internal Medicine and Infectious Diseases, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0675-8459
Jacqueline KoezeDepartment of Critical Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4660-3400
Jan C Ter MaatenDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0353-4011
Fabian JaimesDepartment of Internal Medicine, Universidad de Antioquia, Medellín, Antioquia, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7315-5367
Hjalmar R BoumaDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1032-321X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeSepsis is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The lack of specific prognostic markers necessitates tools for early risk identification in patients with suspected infections in emergency department (ED). This study evaluates the prognostic accuracy of various Early Warning Scores (EWS)-MEWS, NEWS, NEWS-2, and qSOFA-for in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and ICU admission, considering the site of infection.

methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted using data from the Acutelines cohort, which included data collected from patients admitted to the University Medical Centre Groningen ED between September 2020 and July 2023. Patients were included if they had an ICD-10 code for infection. EWS were calculated using clinical data within 8 h post-admission. Predictive performance was assessed using AUC-ROC, calibration by the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and calibration curves, and operative characteristics like sensitivity and specificity.

resultsA total of 1661 patients were analyzed, with infections distributed as follows: lower respiratory tract (32.9%), urinary tract (30.7%), abdominal (12.5%), skin and soft tissue (9.5%), and others (8.2%). The overall in-hospital mortality was 6.7%, and ICU admission was 7.1%. The highest AUC-ROC for in-hospital mortality prediction was observed with NEWS and NEWS-2 in abdominal infections (0.86), while the lowest was for qSOFA in skin and soft tissue infections (0.57). Predictive performance varied by infection site.

conclusionsThe study highlights the variability in EWS performance based on infection site, emphasizing the need to consider the source of infection in EWS development for sepsis prognosis. Tailored or hybrid models may enhance predictive accuracy, balancing simplicity and specificity.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalHospital MortalityAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEarly Warning ScoreFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRetrospective StudiesROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificitySepsisEarly warning scoreInfectionsIntensive care unitMortalityPrognosisSepsis

Identifiers

PMID39414696
PMCPMC11608163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.