The ability of early warning scores (EWS) to detect critical illness in the prehospital setting: A systematic review

IF 6.5 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Resuscitation Pub Date : 2016-05-01 DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.02.011
Teresa A. Williams , Hideo Tohira , Judith Finn , Gavin D. Perkins , Kwok M. Ho
{"title":"The ability of early warning scores (EWS) to detect critical illness in the prehospital setting: A systematic review","authors":"Teresa A. Williams ,&nbsp;Hideo Tohira ,&nbsp;Judith Finn ,&nbsp;Gavin D. Perkins ,&nbsp;Kwok M. Ho","doi":"10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.02.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><p>To examine whether early warning scores (EWS) can accurately predict critical illness in the prehospital setting and affect patient outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched bibliographic databases for comparative studies that examined prehospital EWS for patients transported by ambulance in the prehospital setting. The ability of the different EWS, including pre-alert protocols and physiological-based EWS, to predict critical illness (sensitivity, odds ratio [OR], area under receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] curves) and hospital mortality was summarised. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Eight studies were identified. Two studies compared the use of EWS to standard practice using clinical judgement alone to identify critical illness: the pooled diagnostic OR and summary AUROC for EWS were 10.9 (95%CI 4.2–27.9) and 0.78 (95%CI 0.74–0.82), respectively. A study of 144,913 patients reported age and physiological variables predictive of critical illness: AUROC in the independent validation sample was 0.77, 95% CI 0.76–0.78. The high-risk patients stratified by the national early warning score (NEWS) were significantly associated with a higher risk of both mortality and intensive care admission. Data on comparing between different EWS were limited; the Prehospital Early Sepsis Detection (PRESEP) score predicted occurrence of sepsis better than the Modified EWS (AUROC 0.93 <em>versus</em> 0.77, respectively).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>EWS in the prehospital setting appeared useful in predicting clinically important outcomes, but the significant heterogeneity between different EWS suggests that these positive promising findings may not be generalisable. Adequately powered prospective studies are needed to identify the EWS best suited to the prehospital setting.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":21052,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation","volume":"102 ","pages":"Pages 35-43"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.02.011","citationCount":"75","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300957216000836","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 75

Abstract

Aim

To examine whether early warning scores (EWS) can accurately predict critical illness in the prehospital setting and affect patient outcomes.

Methods

We searched bibliographic databases for comparative studies that examined prehospital EWS for patients transported by ambulance in the prehospital setting. The ability of the different EWS, including pre-alert protocols and physiological-based EWS, to predict critical illness (sensitivity, odds ratio [OR], area under receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] curves) and hospital mortality was summarised. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale.

Results

Eight studies were identified. Two studies compared the use of EWS to standard practice using clinical judgement alone to identify critical illness: the pooled diagnostic OR and summary AUROC for EWS were 10.9 (95%CI 4.2–27.9) and 0.78 (95%CI 0.74–0.82), respectively. A study of 144,913 patients reported age and physiological variables predictive of critical illness: AUROC in the independent validation sample was 0.77, 95% CI 0.76–0.78. The high-risk patients stratified by the national early warning score (NEWS) were significantly associated with a higher risk of both mortality and intensive care admission. Data on comparing between different EWS were limited; the Prehospital Early Sepsis Detection (PRESEP) score predicted occurrence of sepsis better than the Modified EWS (AUROC 0.93 versus 0.77, respectively).

Conclusion

EWS in the prehospital setting appeared useful in predicting clinically important outcomes, but the significant heterogeneity between different EWS suggests that these positive promising findings may not be generalisable. Adequately powered prospective studies are needed to identify the EWS best suited to the prehospital setting.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
早期预警评分(EWS)在院前检测危重疾病的能力:一项系统综述
目的探讨早期预警评分(EWS)能否准确预测院前危重疾病并影响患者预后。方法我们检索文献数据库,比较研究院前救护车运送患者的院前EWS。总结了不同EWS(包括预警方案和基于生理的EWS)预测危重疾病(敏感性、比值比(OR)、受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUROC))和医院死亡率的能力。使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估研究质量。结果共确定了8项研究。两项研究比较了使用EWS与仅使用临床判断来识别危重疾病的标准实践:EWS的合并诊断OR和总AUROC分别为10.9 (95%CI 4.2-27.9)和0.78 (95%CI 0.74-0.82)。一项纳入144,913例患者的研究报告了预测危重疾病的年龄和生理变量:独立验证样本的AUROC为0.77,95% CI为0.76-0.78。根据国家早期预警评分(NEWS)分层的高危患者与较高的死亡率和重症监护住院风险显著相关。不同EWS间的比较数据有限;院前早期脓毒症检测(PRESEP)评分对脓毒症发生的预测优于改良EWS评分(AUROC分别为0.93和0.77)。院前环境中的EWS对预测临床重要结果有用,但不同EWS之间的显著异质性表明,这些积极的有希望的发现可能无法推广。需要充分有力的前瞻性研究来确定最适合院前环境的EWS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Resuscitation
Resuscitation 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
18.50%
发文量
556
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: Resuscitation is a monthly international and interdisciplinary medical journal. The papers published deal with the aetiology, pathophysiology and prevention of cardiac arrest, resuscitation training, clinical resuscitation, and experimental resuscitation research, although papers relating to animal studies will be published only if they are of exceptional interest and related directly to clinical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Papers relating to trauma are published occasionally but the majority of these concern traumatic cardiac arrest.
期刊最新文献
Associations with Resolution of ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Criteria on Out-of-Hospital 12-lead Electrocardiograms Following Resuscitation from Cardiac Arrest. Hesitate to Resuscitate? A cohort study of hesitation to initiate resuscitation for in-hospital cardiac arrests. Amiodarone in shockable cardiac arrest: light and shadow. Double or nothing: alternative defibrillation strategies reduces downtime in ventricular fibrillation. Evaluating the Accuracy of Surrogate Markers for Identifying Opioid-Associated Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrests.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1