Observational studyBioMed research international2026
A Heart Rate Variability-Derived Decision Support Tool for Prognostication in Emergency Department Patients With Suspected Infection.
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.
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.
- A Heart Rate Variability-Derived Decision Support Tool for Prognostication in Emergency Department Patients With Suspected Infection.BioMed research international · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.