Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41522728›Full record

Observational studyBioMed research international2026

A Heart Rate Variability-Derived Decision Support Tool for Prognostication in Emergency Department Patients With Suspected Infection.

Andrew J E Seely, Douglas P Barnaby, Natasha Hudek, Christophe L Herry, Nathan B Scales, Shannon M Fernando, Jamie C Brehaut, Jeffrey J Perry

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BioMed research international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
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

8 authors.

Andrew J E SeelyDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, uottawa.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-6459-8801
Douglas P BarnabyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Zucker School of Medicine, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, USA, hofstra.edu.
Natasha HudekOttawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, uottawa.ca.
Christophe L HerryOttawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, uottawa.ca.
Nathan B ScalesOttawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, uottawa.ca.
Shannon M FernandoDepartment of Critical Care, Lakeridge Health Corporation, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada, lakeridgehealth.on.ca.
Jamie C BrehautOttawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, uottawa.ca.
Jeffrey J PerryDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, uottawa.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: Prediction of future deterioration in emergency department patients with infection is difficult, and existing prognostic tools are inaccurate. We evaluated the feasibility of deployment of a clinical decision support tool, Sepsis Advisor, which utilizes heart rate variability and laboratory values to predict future deterioration in emergency department patients with treated infection. Methods: This study was an observational, prospective, Pilot Phase 1 feasibility implementation study involving two sites within a single academic health sciences centre. Then, 71 patients were enrolled, all with suspected/treated infection and systemic inflammatory response. Patients underwent 30 min of electrocardiograph recording. The generated predictive model and Sepsis Advisor report were shown to physicians observationally, > 48 h after clinical encounter, while assessing perceived usability, value, barriers and drivers with using the tool through interviews with nurses and physicians. Results: Of the 71 patients enrolled, 65 (92%) had adequate duration of heart rate variability measurements to generate a predictive model (average recording: 25 ± 7 min); 100% had clinical data entry. Creatinine, lactate, and INR were drawn 97%, 56%, and 28% of the time and were incorporated into predictive models. Physician and nurse reported drivers for use included potential to facilitate communication, improve care, and ease of integration. Barriers included the need to understand and interpret results from the tool, time constraints, changing routines, and gaining buy-in. User-centered feedback informed four improved versions of the tool. Conclusions: Observational deployment of a heart rate variability-based clinical decision support tool within the emergency department is feasible and perceived to have the potential to improve care.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalEmergency Service, HospitalHeart RateInfectionsSepsisAdultAgedElectrocardiographyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisProspective Studiesclinical decision supportemergency departmentheart rate variabilityprognosticationsepsisseptic shock

Identifiers

PMID41522728
PMCPMC12781178

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.