Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Manual centile-based early warning scores derived from statistical distributions of observational vital-sign data.
Watkinson, Peter J; Pimentel, Marco A F; Clifton, David A; Tarassenko, Lionel.
Afiliação
  • Watkinson PJ; Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, OX3 9DU Oxford, UK.
  • Pimentel MAF; Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, OX3 7DQ Oxford, UK. Electronic address: marco.pimentel@eng.ox.ac.uk.
  • Clifton DA; Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, OX3 7DQ Oxford, UK.
  • Tarassenko L; Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, OX3 7DQ Oxford, UK.
Resuscitation ; 129: 55-60, 2018 08.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29879432
ABSTRACT
AIMS OF STUDY To develop and validate a centile-based early warning score using manually-recorded data (mCEWS). To compare mCEWS performance with a centile-based early warning score derived from continuously-acquired data (from bedside monitors, cCEWS), and with other published early warning scores. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

We used an unsupervised approach to investigate the statistical properties of vital signs in an in-hospital patient population and construct an early-warning score from a "development" dataset. We evaluated scoring systems on a separate "validation" dataset. We assessed the ability of scores to discriminate patients at risk of cardiac arrest, unanticipated intensive care unit admission, or death, each within 24 h of a given vital-sign observation, using metrics including the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC).

RESULTS:

The development dataset contained 301,644 vital sign observations from 12,153 admissions (median age (IQR) 63 (49-73); 49.2% females) March 2014-September 2015. The validation dataset contained 1,459,422 vital-sign observations from 53,395 admissions (median age (IQR) 68 (48-81), 51.4% females) October 2015-May 2017. The AUC (95% CI) for the mCEWS was 0.868 (0.864-0.872), comparable with the National EWS, 0.867 (0.863-0.871), and other recently proposed scores. The AUC for cCEWS was 0.808 (95% CI, 0.804-0.812). The improvement in performance in comparison to the continuous CEWS was mainly explained by respiratory rate threshold differences.

CONCLUSIONS:

Performance of an EWS is highly dependent on the database from which itis derived. Our unsupervised statistical approach provides a straightforward, reproducible method to enable the rapid development of candidate EWS systems.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Medição de Risco / Sinais Vitais / Parada Cardíaca / Hospitalização / Unidades de Terapia Intensiva Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Região como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Resuscitation Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Medição de Risco / Sinais Vitais / Parada Cardíaca / Hospitalização / Unidades de Terapia Intensiva Tipo de estudo: Etiology_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País/Região como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Resuscitation Ano de publicação: 2018 Tipo de documento: Article