ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2025
[Early warning scores: a rapid umbrella review].
Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly warning scores (EWS) are used for monitoring and evaluating vital signs in hospitalized patients. With EWS, escalating measures for monitoring, consultation, and admission to intensive care units (ICU) can be initiated based on point values, potentially improving patient outcomes, (mostly mortality, ICU admission, sepsis, cardiac arrest). It remains unclear in which areas the implementation of EWS is most appropriate.
methodsA rapid umbrella review including systematic reviews and meta-analyses, with searches conducted in CINAHL via EBSCO, OVID via Medline, Cochrane via Cochrane Library and LIVIVO via University Library Cologne, and data extraction in May 2024.
resultsA total of 44 systematic reviews and 15 meta-analyses covering 542 individual studies with 57 different EWS versions in various settings/aspects such as methodology, patient outcome (sepsis, emergency departments, obstetrics, pediatrics), implementation, performance, and others were identified. Both the analysis results and the level of evidence from the analyses appear heterogeneous. EWS seem to be most effective in reducing risks in high-risk populations such as in emergency departments, geriatric trauma, medicine, and surgery, and possibly post-ICU patients. However, implementation requires extensive resources in terms of staff, structures, and processes to ensure quality improvement. Electronic aids such as monitoring systems, red flags in electronic patient records, and the use of artificial intelligence could significantly support implementation.
conclusionThere is no general recommendation for or against the widespread introduction of EWS. EWS should first be implemented in high-risk areas, considering available staffing and material resources. Electronic systems could assist in implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40576804What 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.