ArticleAcute medicine & surgery
Validation of the Glasgow Admission Prediction Score in a Japanese Emergency Setting.
Article in Acute medicine & surgery. 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.
- Validation of the Glasgow Admission Prediction Score in a Japanese Emergency Setting.Acute medicine & surgeryArticle
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
Introduction: The Glasgow Admission Prediction Score (GAPS) is a triage tool that was developed in the United Kingdom to predict hospital admission based on available patient data upon arrival at emergency departments (EDs). Despite being associated with length of hospital stay, 6-month mortality, and readmission, its validity has only been assessed in the UK. Its generalizability therefore remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the predictive performance of the GAPS for short- and intermediate-term outcomes in a Japanese ED setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of ambulance-transported ED visits between December 2020 and September 2023 at a Japanese general hospital. After excluding pediatric patients and those with missing or inconsistent data, 22,179 encounters were analyzed. GAPS scores were calculated upon ED arrival and stratified into tertiles. The outcomes included 30-day mortality, 30-day emergency re-transportation, 100-day hospital readmission, and length of inpatient stay. Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses were performed. Results: Higher GAPS scores were significantly associated with less favorable outcomes. Each 1-point increase was linked to a 10.3% increase in 30-day mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 1.10-1.11), or a four-fold increase per 15-point rise (HR = 4.32). Similar associations were observed for re-transportation (HR = 1.03) and hospital readmission (HR = 1.09). Higher GAPS scores were also associated with longer hospital stays (HR for discharge = 0.98). Conclusion: GAPS presents a practical tool for predicting ambulance-transported ED encounter outcomes in Japan, although its broader applicability warrants further research.
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.