scholarly journals Comparison of qSOFA and Hospital Early Warning Scores for prognosis in suspected sepsis in emergency department patients: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
pp. emermed-2020-210416
Author(s):  
Lisa Sabir ◽  
Shammi Ramlakhan ◽  
Steve Goodacre
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Early Warning ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Good Prediction ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
Prediction Of Mortality ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Early Warning Scores

BackgroundSepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and many tools exist to facilitate early recognition. This review compares two tools: the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and Early Warning Scores (National/Modified Early Warning Scores (NEWS/MEWS)) for predicting intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality when applied in the emergency department.MethodsA literature search was conducted using Medline, CINAHL, Embase and Cochrane Library, handsearching of references and a grey literature search with no language or date restrictions. Two authors selected studies and quality assessment completed using QUADAS-2. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), sensitivities and specificities were compared.Results13 studies were included, totalling 403 865 patients. All reported mortality and six reported ICU admission.The ranges for AUROC estimates varied from little better than chance to good prediction of mortality (NEWS: 0.59–0.88; qSOFA: 0.57–0.79; MEWS 0.56–0.75), however, individual papers generally reported higher AUROC values for NEWS than qSOFA. NEWS values demonstrated a tendency towards better sensitivity for ICU admission (NEWS ≥5, 46%-91%; qSOFA ≥2, 12%–53%) and mortality (NEWS ≥5, 51%–97%; qSOFA ≥2, 14%–71%) but lower specificity (ICU: NEWS ≥5, 25%–91%; qSOFA ≥2, 67%–99%; mortality: NEWS ≥5, 22%–91%; qSOFA ≥2, 58%–99%).ConclusionThe wide range of AUROC estimates and high heterogeneity limit our conclusions. Allowing for this, the NEWS AUROC was consistently higher than qSOFA within individual papers. Both scores allow threshold setting, determined by the preferred compromise between sensitivity and specificity. At established thresholds NEWS tended to higher sensitivity while qSOFA tended to a higher specificity.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019131414.

scholarly journals 356 Comparison of qSOFA, and hospital early warning scores for prognosis in suspected sepsis in emergency department patients: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (12) ◽  
pp. 843.1-843
Author(s):  
Lisa Sabir ◽  
Shammi Ramlakhan ◽  
Steve Goodacre
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Early Warning ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Good Prediction ◽  
Suspected Sepsis ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Early Warning Scores

Aims/Objectives/BackgroundSepsis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality and many tools exist to facilitate early recognition. The current international consensus definition of sepsis recommends the use of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in the emergency department (ED) to rapidly identify those who are likely to have poor outcomes. Early Warning Scores (EWS) are used more routinely; if these could provide the same information, they could allow standardisation and streamlining of effort.This review compares two toolsqSOFA and EWS (National/Modified Early Warning Scores (NEWS/MEWS)) for predicting intensive care (ICU) admission and mortality when applied to suspected sepsis patients in the ED.Methods/DesignA literature search was conducted using Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane Library, hand searching of references and a grey literature search with no language or date restrictions. Two authors selected studies and quality assessment completed using QUADAS-2. Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC), sensitivities, and specificities were compared.Results/ConclusionsResults12 studies were included, totalling 395,661 patients. All reported mortality and six reported ICU admission.AUROC estimates were variable ranging from little better than chance to good prediction. The ranges demonstrated overlap between scores suggesting little difference for predicting mortality (NEWS: 0.59–0.88; qSOFA: 0.57–0.79; MEWS 0.56–0.75). However, individual papers mostly reported higher AUROC values for NEWS than qSOFA. NEWS demonstrated a trend to better sensitivity for ICU admission (NEWS≥5 0.46–0.91; qSOFA≥2 0.12–0.53) and mortality (NEWS≥5 0.51–0.97; qSOFA≥2 0.14–0.7) but lower specificity (ICU: NEWS≥5 0.25–0.91; qSOFA≥2 0.67–0.99. Mortality: NEWS≥5 0.22–0.91; qSOFA≥2 0.58–0.99).ConclusionThe wide range of AUROC estimates and high heterogeneity limit our conclusions. Allowing for this, the NEWS AUROC was consistently higher than qSOFA within individual papers. Both scores allow threshold setting, determined by the preferred compromise between sensitivity and specificity. At established thresholds NEWS trended to higher sensitivity whilst qSOFA favoured specificity.

The Use of Prognostic Prediction Models for Mortality or Clinical Deterioration among Hospitalized and Non-hospitalized Adults with COVID-19: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Pauline M. Remalante-Rayco ◽  
Evelyn Osio-Salido
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Early Warning ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
External Validation ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Clinical Deterioration ◽  
Early Warning Score ◽  
Good Prediction ◽  
Prediction Of Mortality

Objective. To assess the performance of prognostic models in predicting mortality or clinical deterioration among patients with COVID-19, both hospitalized and non-hospitalized Methods. We conducted a systematic review of the literature until March 8, 2021. We included models for the prediction of mortality or clinical deterioration in COVID-19 with external validation. We used the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) and the GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool (GDT) to assess the evidence obtained. Results. We reviewed 33 cohort studies. Two studies had a low risk of bias, four unclear risks, and 27 with a high risk of bias due to participant selection and analysis. For the outcome of mortality, the QCOVID model had excellent prediction with high certainty of evidence but was specific for use in England. The COVID Outcome Prediction in the Emergency Department (COPE) model, the 4C Mortality Score, the Age, BUN, number of comorbidities, CRP, SpO2/FiO2 ratio, platelet count, heart rate (ABC2-SPH) risk score, the Confusion Urea Respiration Blood Pressure (CURB-65) severity score, the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), and the Risk Stratification in the Emergency Department in Acutely Ill Older Patients (RISE UP) score had fair to good prediction of death among inpatients, while the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score had poor to fair prediction. The certainty of evidence for these models was very low to low. For the outcome of clinical deterioration, the 4C Deterioration Score had fair prediction, the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) score poor to good, and the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) had poor prediction. The certainty of evidence for these three models was also very low to low. None of these models had been validated in the Philippine setting. Conclusion. The QCOVID, COPE, ABC2-SPH, 4C, CURB-65, REMS, RISE-UP models for prediction of mortality and the 4C Deterioration and NEWS2 models for prediction of clinical deterioration are potentially useful but need to be validated among patients with COVID-19 of varying severity in the Philippine setting.

Determination of the best early warning scores to predict clinical outcomes of patients in emergency department

2019 ◽  
pp. emermed-2019-208622 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Spencer ◽  
Jesse Smith ◽  
Patrick Date ◽  
Erik de Tonnerre ◽  
David McDonald Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Early Warning ◽  
Predictive Ability ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Clinical Deterioration ◽  
Inhospital Mortality ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Early Warning Scores

ObjectiveEarly warning scores (EWS) are used to predict patient outcomes. We aimed to determine which of 13 EWS, based largely on emergency department (ED) vital sign data, best predict important clinical outcomes.MethodWe undertook a prospective cohort study in a metropolitan, tertiary-referral ED in Melbourne, Australia (February–April 2018). Patient demographics, vital signs and management data were collected while the patients were in the ED and EWS were calculated using each EWS criteria. Outcome data were extracted from the medical record (2-day, 7-day and 28-day inhospital mortality, clinical deterioration within 2 days, intensive care unit (ICU) admission within 2 days, admission to hospital). Area under the receiver operator characteristic (AUROC; 95% CIs) curves were used to evaluate the predictive ability of each EWS for each outcome.ResultsOf 1730 patients enrolled, 690 patients were admitted to the study hospital. Most EWS were good or excellent predictors of 2-day mortality. When considering the point estimates, the VitalPac EWS was the most strongly predictive (AUROC: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.92 to 0.99). However, when considering the 95% CIs, there was no significant difference between the highest performing EWS. The predictive ability for 7-day and 28-day mortality was generally less. No EWS was a good predictor for clinical deterioration (AUROC range: 0.54–0.70), ICU admission (range: 0.51–0.72) or admission to hospital (range: 0.51–0.68).ConclusionSeveral EWS have excellent predictive ability for 2-day mortality and have the potential to risk stratify patients in ED. No EWS adequately predicted clinical deterioration, admission to either ICU or the hospital.

Interventions to change clinician behaviour in relation to suicide prevention care in the emergency department: A scoping review protocol

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hwayeon Danielle Shin ◽  
Christine Cassidy ◽  
Janet Curran ◽  
Lori Weeks ◽  
Leslie Anne Campbell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Suicide Prevention ◽  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Allied Health Professionals ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Knowledge And Attitude ◽  
Clinician Behaviour ◽  
Google Search

Objective: This review aims to explore, characterize, and map the literature on interventions implemented to change emergency department (ED) clinicians’ behaviour related to suicide prevention using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) as a guiding theoretical framework. Introduction: An ED is a critical place for suicide prevention. Yet, many patients who present with suicide-related thoughts and behaviours are discharged without proper assessment or appropriate treatment. Supporting clinicians (who provide direct clinical care, including nurses, physicians, allied health professionals) to make the desired behaviour change following evidence-based suicide prevention care is an essential step toward improving patient outcomes. However, reviews to date have yet to take a theoretical approach to investigate interventions implemented to change clinicians’ behaviour. Inclusion criteria: This review will consider literature that includes interventions that target ED clinicians’ behaviour change related to suicide prevention. Behaviour change refers to observable practice changes as well as proxy measures of behaviour change including knowledge and attitude. There are many ways in which an intervention can change clinicians’ behaviour (e.g., education, altering service delivery). This review will include a wide range of interventions that target behaviour change regardless of the type but exclude interventions that exclusively target patients.Methods: Multiple databases will be searched: PubMed, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Embase. We will also include grey literature, including Google search, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and Scopus conference papers. Full text of included studies will be reviewed, critically appraised and extracted. Extracted data will be coded to identify intervention functions using the BCW. Findings will be summarized in tables accompanied by narrative reports.

scholarly journals 303 What goes bump in the night? A literature review and noise exposure experiment in a UK paediatric emergency department

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (12) ◽  
pp. 841.1-841
Author(s):  
Lucy Hall ◽  
Sophie Dando ◽  
Anthony Hanks
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Noise Levels ◽  
Paediatric Emergency Department ◽  
Paediatric Emergency ◽  
Sound Levels ◽  
Exposure Experiment

Aims/Objectives/BackgroundIn the Emergency department (ED), noise is a frequent and often unavoidable consequence of work undertaken and levels can often be raised during the day and night. Raised ambient noise levels have potential implications for the workforce, patients and relatives.Investigation into the problem of noise levels in the ED follows feedback from a young patient who couldn’t sleep during a prolonged stay. His complaint focused on loud, irregular banging noises such as those from closing bins that kept him awake.The team felt work should be done to see if it was a wider spread problem or just isolated to his case. A simple sound recording experiment and literature search was conducted.Methods/DesignThe literature search was conducted using electronic/online databases (Medline; Cochrane library) with a fixed date range and specific inclusion criteria.The noise exposure experiment was conducted using a verified phone app to record the sound levels. They were measured at 3 times, during a night shift, in the paediatric emergency department of UHW. All measurements were at a fixed distance and were averaged and compared with WHO recommendations.Results/ConclusionsThere are many sources of noise pollution in the ED, some are unavoidable for safety and clinical reasons.The literature review produced a small number of papers all of which found that sound levels were raised above recommended levels. Similarly, all the sounds measured in the ED also exceeded the recommendations.The most consistent finding across the papers, matched by findings from recordings, was that human behavioural modification is an easy and effective way to reduce noise levels.There are simple steps that can be taken to reduce and eliminate soundsRaising awareness regarding this problem is of great importance and focussing future work on assessing the impact in younger patients within the Emergency Department is paramount.

Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems for Prescribing in Primary Care: Main Characteristics and Implementation Impact. Protocol of an Evidence and Gap Map.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hector Acosta-Garcia ◽  
Ingrid Ferrer-López ◽  
Juan Ruano-Ruiz ◽  
Bernardo Santos-Ramos ◽  
Teresa Molina-López
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cochrane Library

Abstract Background Computerized clinical decision support systems are used by clinicians at the point-of-care to improve quality of healthcare processes (prescribing error prevention, adherence to clinical guidelines...) and clinical outcomes (preventive, therapeutic, and diagnostics). Attempts to summarize results of computerized clinical decision support systems to support prescription in primary care have been challenging, and most systematic reviews and meta-analyses failed due to an extremely high degree of heterogeneity present among the included primary studies. The aim of our study will be to synthesize the evidence, considering all methodological factors that could explain these differences, and to build an evidence and gap map to identify important remaining research questions. Methods A literature search will be conducted from January 2010 onwards in Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text and abstract data. The study methodological quality and risk of bias will be appraised using appropriate tools if applicable. A flow diagram with the screened studies will be presented, and all included studies will be displayed using interactive evidence and gap maps. Results will be reported in accordance with recommendations from The Campbell Collaboration on the development of evidence and gap maps. Discussion Evidence behind computerized clinical decision support systems to support prescription use in primary care, has so far been difficult to be synthesized. Evidence and gap maps represent an innovative approach that has emerged and is increasingly being used to address a broader research question, where multiple types of intervention and outcomes reported may be evaluated. Broad inclusion criteria have been chosen with regards to study designs, in order to collect all available information. Regarding the limitations we will only include English and Spanish language studies from the last 10 years, we will not perform a grey literature search, and we will not carry out a meta-analysis due to the predictable heterogeneity of available studies. Systematic Review registration: This study is registered in Open Science Framework https://bit.ly/2RqKrWp

scholarly journals Prediction of mortality in adult patients with sepsis using six biomarkers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Pregernig ◽  
Mattia Müller ◽  
Ulrike Held ◽  
Beatrice Beck-Schimmer
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Advanced Glycation Endproducts ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Systematic Literature Search ◽  
Prognostic Information ◽  
Prediction Of Mortality ◽  
Mean Differences

Abstract Background Angiopoietin-1 (Ang-1) and 2 (Ang-2), high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1), soluble receptor for advanced glycation endproducts (sRAGE), soluble triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 1 (sTREM1), and soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) have shown promising results for predicting all-cause mortality in critical care patients. The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the prognostic value of these biomarkers for mortality in adult patients with sepsis. Methods A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, for articles in English published from 01.01.1990 onwards, was conducted. The systematic review focused exclusively on observational studies of adult patients with sepsis, any randomized trials were excluded. For the meta-analysis, only studies which provide biomarker concentrations within 24 h of admission in sepsis survivors and nonsurvivors were included. Results are presented as pooled mean differences (MD) between nonsurvivors and survivors with 95% confidence interval for each of the six biomarkers. Studies not included in the quantitative analysis were narratively summarized. The risk of bias was assessed in all included studies using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Results The systematic literature search retrieved 2285 articles. In total, we included 44 studies in the qualitative analysis, of which 28 were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled mean differences in biomarker concentration (nonsurvivors − survivors), measured at onset of sepsis, are listed as follows: (1) Ang-1: − 2.9 ng/ml (95% CI − 4.1 to − 1.7, p < 0.01); (2) Ang-2: 4.9 ng/ml (95% CI 2.6 to 7.1, p < 0.01); (3) HMGB1: 1.2 ng/ml (95% CI 0.0 to 2.4, p = 0.05); (4) sRAGE: 1003 pg/ml (95% CI 628 to 1377, p < 0.01); (5) sTREM-1: 87 pg/ml (95% CI 2 to 171, p = 0.04); (6) suPAR: 5.2 ng/ml (95% CI 4.5 to 6.0, p < 0.01). Conclusions Ang-1, Ang-2, and suPAR provide beneficial prognostic information about mortality in adult patients with sepsis. The further development of standardized assays and the assessment of their performance when included in panels with other biomarkers may be recommended. Trial registration This study was recorded on PROSPERO, prospective register of systematic reviews, under the registration ID: CRD42018081226

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document