ArticlePloS one2025
The critical role of timely medical emergency team activation in oncological and non-oncological patients.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Malignancy-Associated Pulmonary Embolism: Mortality, Recurrence, and Bleeding Risks.Journal of clinical 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to analyse the impact of time from first physiological derangement (positive Vital Sign Score, VSS) to Medical Emergency Team (MET) activation on mortality in oncological versus non-oncological patients.
methodsAll in-hospital patients requiring a MET assessment were included. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Subanalyses were performed for the population that was admitted to the ICU as well as the subgroups of oncological with solid vs. haematological cancer. In addition, we assessed the number and time points of VSS measurements in oncological and non-oncological patients.
results286 out of 4068 (8.9%) documented MET calls were attributed to oncological patients. Each hour delay from first abnormal VSS to MET activation was associated with an 3% increase in adjusted 30-day all-cause mortality odds (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.05, p < 0.001), independent of oncological status (interaction p = 0.141). Oncological patients had a significantly higher number of vital sign measurements on the ward (median 24 [16-37] vs 18 [10-27], p < 0.001) before MET activation, and higher 30-day all-cause mortality (38.1% vs 21.8%, p < 0.001).
conclusionsAlthough the overall outcome did not differ between, oncological patients comprised 10% of MET calls, had higher mortality and had significantly more frequent vital sign monitoring, reflecting greater clinical concern. Tailored monitoring including early MET review has potential to improve outcomes particularly in high-risk oncological patients.
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.