Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41163146›Full record

Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2025

Physiological scoring systems for early identification of critically ill older adults in the emergency department: a prospective observational cohort study.

Buğra İlhan, Muhammed Furkan Irmak, Doğukan Tutar, Oğuz Eroğlu, Turgut Deniz

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Assessing Risk of Early ICU Admission or Death at Emergency Department Triage: Clinical Judgment Versus Early Warning Scores.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

5 authors.

Buğra İlhanDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kırıkkale University Faculty of Medicine, Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Kampüsü, Ankara Yolu 7. km, Yahşihan, Kırıkkale, 71450, Türkiye. bugra_ilhan@yahoo.com.
Muhammed Furkan IrmakDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kırıkkale University Faculty of Medicine, Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Kampüsü, Ankara Yolu 7. km, Yahşihan, Kırıkkale, 71450, Türkiye.
Doğukan TutarDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kırıkkale University Faculty of Medicine, Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Kampüsü, Ankara Yolu 7. km, Yahşihan, Kırıkkale, 71450, Türkiye.
Oğuz EroğluDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kırıkkale University Faculty of Medicine, Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Kampüsü, Ankara Yolu 7. km, Yahşihan, Kırıkkale, 71450, Türkiye.
Turgut DenizDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Kırıkkale University Faculty of Medicine, Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Kampüsü, Ankara Yolu 7. km, Yahşihan, Kırıkkale, 71450, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmergency department (ED) overcrowding and the rising proportion of older adults presenting with atypical symptoms pose significant challenges for timely recognition of critical illness. Conventional triage algorithms may fail to reliably identify high-risk geriatric patients, leading to delays in care. To address this issue, this study aimed to evaluate the predictive performance of six commonly used physiological scoring systems—Triage Early Warning Score (TREWS), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), Worthing Physiological Scoring System (WPS), and Simple Triage Scoring System (STSS)—for identifying critically ill geriatric patients during emergency department triage.

methodsThis prospective observational cohort study was conducted in the ED of a tertiary university hospital between November 1, 2024, and January 31, 2025. All patients aged ≥ 65 years were consecutively enrolled. Patients without vital signs upon arrival, those transferred from other facilities, and those with incomplete data were excluded. Demographics, comorbidities, initial vital signs, and clinical outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included 24-hour, 48-hour, 7-day, and 30-day mortality, as well as ICU admission. The discriminative performance of each score was evaluated using AUROC analysis.

resultsA total of 3,486 patients were included in the final analysis. In-hospital mortality was 4.1% (n = 144). The 24-hour, 48-hour, 7-day, and 30-day mortality rates were 0.7%, 0.9%, 2.2%, and 4.1%, respectively. TREWS and MEWS showed considerable predictive performance for in-hospital mortality (AUROC: 0.815 and 0.803, respectively), while other scores demonstrated poor-to-fair predictive ability. TREWS also showed the highest performance across all outcome measures.

conclusionAmong the evaluated scoring systems, TREWS demonstrated the highest predictive accuracy for in-hospital mortality, and consistent performance in predicting short- and long-term mortality as well as ICU admission among geriatric patients. Given its ease of use and reliance on routine triage data, TREWS may serve as a valuable tool for early identification of high-risk geriatric patients in busy ED settings. Further large-scale, multicenter studies are warranted to validate these findings. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessEmergency Service, HospitalGeriatric AssessmentTriageAgedAged, 80 and overEarly Warning ScoreFemaleHospital MortalityHumansMaleProspective StudiesCritical illnessEarly warning scoreGeriatricsMortalityTriage

Identifiers

PMID41163146
PMCPMC12573986

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.