ArticleAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2025
Clinical decision instruments for predicting mortality in patients with cirrhosis seeking emergency department care.
Article in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical decision instruments for predicting mortality in patients with cirrhosis seeking emergency department care.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveClinical decision instruments (CDIs) could be useful to aid risk stratification and disposition of emergency department (ED) patients with cirrhosis. Our primary objective was to derive and internally validate a novel Cirrhosis Risk Instrument for Stratifying Post-Emergency department mortality (CRISPE) for the outcomes of 14- and 30-day post-ED mortality. Secondarily, we externally validated the existing Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores for explicit use in ED patients and prediction of the same outcomes.
methodsA cohort of 2093 adults with cirrhosis, at 16 sites in a statewide health system, was analyzed for 119 candidate variables available at ED disposition. LASSO with 10-fold cross-validation was used in variable selection for 14-day (CRISPE-14) and 30-day (CRISPE-30) logistic regression models. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated for each variant of the CRISPE and MELD scores and compared via Delong's test. Predictions were compared to actual ED disposition for predictive value and reclassification statistics.
resultsMedian (interquartile range [IQR]) characteristics of the cohort were age 62 (53-70) years and MELD 3.0 13.0 (8.0-20.0). Mortality was 4.3% and 8.5% at 14 and 30 days, respectively. CRISPE-14 and CRISPE-30 outperformed each MELD variant, achieving AUROC of 0.824 (95% CI: 0.781-0.866) and 0.829 (0.796-0.861), respectively. MELD 3.0 AUROCs were 0.724 (0.667-0.781) and 0.715 (0.672-0.781), respectively. Compared to ED disposition, CRISPE-14, CRISPE-30, and MELD 3.0 significantly improved positive and negative predictive value and net reclassification index at multiple cutoffs. Applying CRISPE-30 (cutoff 4.5) favorably reclassified one net ED disposition for mortality for every 12 patients, while MELD 3.0 net reclassified one disposition per 84 patients.
conclusionsCDIs may be useful in risk-stratifying ED patients with cirrhosis and aiding disposition decision making. The novel CRISPE CDI showed powerful performance and requires external validation, while the existing MELD 3.0 score has moderate performance and is now externally-validated in an ED population for short-term 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.