ArticleToxicology research2025
A comparison of different scores for mortality prediction of acutely poisoned patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Toxicology research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Development and validation of a bedside prognostic model for in-hospital mortality in acute diquat poisoning.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical Characteristics and Prognostic Factors of Patients with Acute Poisoning: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study of Diquat, Single-Drug and Mixed-Drug Exposures.Risk management and healthcare policy · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute poisoning typically accounts for 1%-3% of all emergency department (ED) visits, and comprise 4%-40% of admissions to intensive care units (ICU), with a mortality rate of 3%-6%. Accurate assessment of patient prognosis enables the early implementation of appropriate interventions and the effective allocation of limited resources, thereby preventing adverse outcomes. However, it remains unclear which tool offers superior predictive accuracy for the prognosis of poisoned patients. In this article, we review existing assessment tools used to predict mortality risk in poisoned patients and compare their performance. We conducted comprehensive searches in PubMed, EMBASE, Ovid, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and SinoMed databases from their inception up to January 2025. Studies were included if they reported the performance of at least one scoring systems for predicting mortality in patients with acute poisoning. The PRISMA guidelines were followed (PROSPERO registration: CRD42024579941). Data of 60,403 patients across 65 studies were eligible for inclusion. The risk assessment tools reported in more than three studies included APACHE II (47), SOFA (19), SAPS II (11), PSS (16), MEWS (8), REMS (5), new-PMS (5). Significant heterogeneity was observed in the pooled analysis. In this study, PSS exhibited moderate sensitivity and specificity in predicting mortality among patients with acute poisoning, while MEWS demonstrated the highest sensitivity, and new-PMS showed the strongest specificity. The highest AUC values were observed for MEWS and APACHE II. Based on these findings, MEWS and new-PMS may represent the optimal tools for predicting in-hospital/28-day/30-day mortality in poisoned 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.