ArticleCritical care research and practice2026
Investigating the Predictive Power of the National Early Warning Score in Predicting Outcomes Among Intensive Care Unit Patients.
Article in Critical care research and practice, 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.
- Investigating the Predictive Power of the National Early Warning Score in Predicting Outcomes Among Intensive Care Unit Patients.Critical care research and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study is to determine the predictive power of the National Early Warning Score in identifying the outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods: In this study, 300 patients hospitalized in the ICUs (medical and general) of two teaching hospitals affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences were evaluated and followed up for 30 days between June 2023 and April 2024. The samples were selected by convenience sampling based on inclusion criteria. A checklist containing the components of early warning criteria introduced by Braden, SOFA and APACHE II, as well as outcomes of hospitalization in the ward, was used. The early warning criteria were assessed by the researcher at the time of admission, as well as 6 and 24 h after the admission of patients to ICU. The collected data were analysed by SPSS-27 and STATA-14 software using Kruskal-Wallis, Pearson and chi-square tests, as well as the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of early warning system. Results: The mean age of patients was 41 years (31-56), and 63.70% of them were male. Comparison of the area under the ROC curve of early warning tool showed that the early warning score in predicting death at the time of admission, 6 h after admission and 24 h after admission was 0.697, 0.712 and 0.87, respectively. Also, this score in predicting adverse outcomes at the time of admission, 6 h after admission and 24 h after admission was 0.700, 0.784 and 0.936, respectively. In other words, the early warning system had a good predictive power in indicating the occurrence of outcomes at all three times (at admission, 6 hours after admission and 24 h after admission), but the best time to predict death and adverse outcomes was estimated to be 24 h after admission. Conclusion: By evaluating the predictive power of early warning score in identifying the outcomes of patients hospitalized in ICUs, we found that the early warning score at 24 h after admission had a higher predictive power than other times.
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.