ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Validation of the REDS score in hospitalised patients who deteriorated and were admitted to the intensive care unit-a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Applications of the Early Warning Score as an outcome measure: a systematic review of methodologies.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Pooled it
- qREDS score compared with the REDS and NEWS2 scores to risk-stratify emergency department suspected sepsis patients for in-hospital mortality and 168-hour survival probability: a retrospective cohort study.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHospitalised patients are at risk of deterioration and death. Delayed identification and transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) are known to be associated with increased mortality rates. The Risk-stratification of Emergency Department suspected Sepsis (REDS) score was derived and validated in emergency department patients with suspected sepsis. It is unknown if the REDS score would risk-stratify undifferentiated hospitalised patients who deteriorate.
objectivesTo validate the REDS score in hospitalised patients who deteriorate.
methodsThis retrospective cohort single-centre study involved hospitalised adult patients who deteriorated and were transferred to the ICU between 1 April 2022 and 31 March 2023. The first admission to the ICU was studied. The National Early Warning Score2 (NEWS2), REDS, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and change-in-SOFA (ΔSOFA) scores were calculated at the time of referral to the Critical Care Outreach Team (CCOT). The primary outcome measure was in-hospital all-cause mortality. The area under the receiver operator characteristic (AUROC) curves for the scores were compared. Test characteristics at the cut-off points individually and in combination were noted.
resultsOf the 289 patients studied, 91 died. The REDS score had the largest AUROC curve at 0.70 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.75), greater than the NEWS2 score at 0.62 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.68), p=0.03, and similar to the SOFA score 0.67 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.72), p=0.3. The cut-off points for the NEWS2, REDS, SOFA and ΔSOFA scores were >9, >3, >6 and >4, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for a ΔSOFA≥2 was 91.2% (95% CI 83.4 to 96.1) and 15.7% (95% CI 10.9 to 21.5), respectively. REDS≥4 or NEWS2≥7 had a sensitivity of 87.9% (95% CI 79.4 to 93.8) and specificity of 29.3% (95% CI 23.1 to 36.2).
conclusionThe prognostic performance of the REDS score was similar to the SOFA score, but greater than the NEWS2 score. The REDS score could be used in addition to the established NEWS2 score to risk-stratify hospitalised patients for mortality.
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.