Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41130672›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Predicting 30-day mortality in emergency department patients with suspected infection: external validation of the RISE UP score in a single tertiary centre.

Sophie M E van Baar de Knegt, Jan Willem Uffen, Titus A P de Hond, Patricia M Stassen, Noortje Zelis, Karin A H Kaasjager

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sophie M E van Baar de KnegtDepartment of Internal Medicine and Acute Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands s.m.e.vanbaar@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-8861-9306
Jan Willem UffenDepartment of Internal Medicine, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Titus A P de HondDepartment of Internal Medicine and Acute Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Patricia M StassenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Section Acute Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0864-1542
Noortje ZelisDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Section Acute Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0015-5240
Karin A H KaasjagerDepartment of Internal Medicine and Acute Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6958-8285

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRapid identification of high-risk and low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) influences clinical management and can help optimise patient outcomes as well as resource allocation. This study aims to externally validate the Risk Stratification in the Emergency Department in Acutely Ill Older Patients (RISE UP) score in adult patients in the ED with suspected infection. Furthermore, generalisability was assessed by comparing the discriminatory ability of the RISE UP with the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) as well as the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and National Early Warning Score (NEWS).

designRetrospective cohort study.

settingSingle-centre study in the ED of a tertiary, university-affiliated hospital.

participantsAdult patients with suspected infection presenting at the ED for internal medicine from 2016 to 2022. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was all-cause 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were all-cause 14-day mortality, 7-day mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

methodsPrognostic performance was evaluated using discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)) and a calibration plot.

resultsOf the included 5038 ED visits, there was a 30-day mortality of 7.1%. Discrimination of RISE UP for 30-day mortality was good (AUC 0.809; 95% CI 0.786 to 0.832) and significantly higher than that for the other risk scores: qSOFA (AUC 0.675; 95% CI 0.644 to 0.707), MEWS (AUC 0.688; 95% CI 0.658 to 0.718) and NEWS (AUC 0.725; 95% CI 0.696 to 0.754) (p<0.001). For 14-day and 7-day mortality, RISE UP had the highest AUC, but NEWS performed best for ICU admission. The RISE UP score was well calibrated and had significantly better discriminatory ability in older patients aged ≥65 years (AUC 0.772; 95% CI 0.738 to 0.806; p<0.001) and patients with sepsis (AUC 0.746; 95% CI 0.695 to 0.798; p<0.05) compared with the other scores. Low-risk patients with a RISE UP score of <5% yielded a negative predictive value of 97.7% (95% CI 97.2 to 98.1) and a sensitivity of 79.3% (95% CI 74.7 to 83.4).

conclusionsThe RISE UP score outperformed the qSOFA, MEWS and NEWS in predicting 30-day mortality. It is generalisable to an adult infection-specific cohort and may facilitate distinction between high-risk and low-risk patients in the ED, particularly to rule out poor outcomes.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalHospital MortalityInfectionsAgedAged, 80 and overEarly Warning ScoreFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedOrgan Dysfunction ScoresPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentROC CurveEmergency DepartmentsMortalityPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID41130672
PMCPMC12551515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.