Performance of early warning and risk stratification scores versus clinical judgement in the acute setting: a systematic review.

Emergency medicine journal : EMJ Pub Date : 2022-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-09 DOI:10.1136/emermed-2021-211524
Lars Ingmar Veldhuis, Milan L Ridderikhof, Lyfke Bergsma, Faridi Van Etten-Jamaludin, Prabath Wb Nanayakkara, Markus Hollmann
{"title":"Performance of early warning and risk stratification scores versus clinical judgement in the acute setting: a systematic review.","authors":"Lars Ingmar Veldhuis,&nbsp;Milan L Ridderikhof,&nbsp;Lyfke Bergsma,&nbsp;Faridi Van Etten-Jamaludin,&nbsp;Prabath Wb Nanayakkara,&nbsp;Markus Hollmann","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2021-211524","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Risk stratification is increasingly based on Early Warning Score (EWS)-based models, instead of clinical judgement. However, it is unknown how risk-stratification models and EWS perform as compared with the clinical judgement of treating acute healthcare providers. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of all available literature evaluating clinical judgement of healthcare providers to the use of risk-stratification models in predicting patients' clinical outcome.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Studies comparing clinical judgement and risk-stratification models in predicting outcomes in adult patients presenting at the ED were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes included the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission; severe adverse events; clinical deterioration and mortality. Risk of bias among the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six studies (6419 participants) were included of which 4 studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. Only descriptive analysis was performed as a meta-analysis was not possible due to few included studies and high clinical heterogeneity. The performance of clinical judgement and risk-stratification models were both moderate in predicting mortality, deterioration and need for ICU admission with area under the curves between 0.70 and 0.89. The performance of clinical judgement did not significantly differ from risk-stratification models in predicting mortality (n=2 studies) or deterioration (n=1 study). However, clinical judgement of healthcare providers was significantly better in predicting the need for ICU admission (n=2) and severe adverse events (n=1 study) as compared with risk-stratification models.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on limited existing data, clinical judgement has greater accuracy in predicting the need for ICU admission and the occurrence of severe adverse events compared with risk-stratification models in ED patients. However, performance is similar in predicting mortality and deterioration.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD42020218893.</p>","PeriodicalId":410922,"journal":{"name":"Emergency medicine journal : EMJ","volume":" ","pages":"918-923"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency medicine journal : EMJ","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2021-211524","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Objective: Risk stratification is increasingly based on Early Warning Score (EWS)-based models, instead of clinical judgement. However, it is unknown how risk-stratification models and EWS perform as compared with the clinical judgement of treating acute healthcare providers. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of all available literature evaluating clinical judgement of healthcare providers to the use of risk-stratification models in predicting patients' clinical outcome.

Methods: Studies comparing clinical judgement and risk-stratification models in predicting outcomes in adult patients presenting at the ED were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes included the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission; severe adverse events; clinical deterioration and mortality. Risk of bias among the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool.

Results: Six studies (6419 participants) were included of which 4 studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. Only descriptive analysis was performed as a meta-analysis was not possible due to few included studies and high clinical heterogeneity. The performance of clinical judgement and risk-stratification models were both moderate in predicting mortality, deterioration and need for ICU admission with area under the curves between 0.70 and 0.89. The performance of clinical judgement did not significantly differ from risk-stratification models in predicting mortality (n=2 studies) or deterioration (n=1 study). However, clinical judgement of healthcare providers was significantly better in predicting the need for ICU admission (n=2) and severe adverse events (n=1 study) as compared with risk-stratification models.

Conclusion: Based on limited existing data, clinical judgement has greater accuracy in predicting the need for ICU admission and the occurrence of severe adverse events compared with risk-stratification models in ED patients. However, performance is similar in predicting mortality and deterioration.

Prospero registration number: CRD42020218893.

早期预警和风险分层评分的表现与急性环境下的临床判断:一项系统回顾。
目的:风险分层越来越多地基于早期预警评分(EWS)模型,而不是临床判断。然而,目前尚不清楚风险分层模型和EWS与治疗急性医疗保健提供者的临床判断相比表现如何。因此,我们对所有可用的文献进行了系统回顾,以评估医疗保健提供者对使用风险分层模型预测患者临床结果的临床判断。方法:比较在急诊科就诊的成年患者的临床判断和风险分层模型预测预后的研究符合纳入标准。结果包括需要入住重症监护病房(ICU);严重不良事件;临床恶化和死亡率。使用诊断准确性研究质量评估2 (QUADAS-2)工具评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。结果:纳入6项研究(6419名受试者),其中4项研究被判定为高偏倚风险。由于纳入的研究较少且临床异质性高,因此无法进行meta分析,因此仅进行描述性分析。临床判断和风险分层模型在预测死亡率、病情恶化和住院需求方面的表现均为中等,曲线下面积在0.70 ~ 0.89之间。在预测死亡率(n=2项研究)或恶化(n=1项研究)方面,临床判断的表现与风险分层模型没有显著差异。然而,与风险分层模型相比,医疗保健提供者的临床判断在预测ICU住院需求(n=2)和严重不良事件(n=1)方面明显优于风险分层模型。结论:在有限的现有资料基础上,临床判断在预测急诊科患者是否需要住院及严重不良事件发生方面比风险分层模型具有更高的准确性。然而,在预测死亡率和病情恶化方面的表现是相似的。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42020218893。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信