Performance of seven different paediatric early warning scores to predict critical care admission in febrile children presenting to the emergency department: A retrospective cohort study
BMJ Open, ISSN: 2044-6055, Vol: 11, Issue: 5, Page: e044091
2021
- 16Citations
- 81Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations16
- Citation Indexes16
- CrossRef16
- 10
- Captures81
- Readers81
- 81
Article Description
Objective Paediatric Early Warning Scores (PEWS) are widely used in the UK, but the heterogeneity across tools and the limited data on their predictive performance represent obstacles to improving best practice. The standardisation of practice through the proposed National PEWS will rely on robust validation. Therefore, we compared the performance of the National PEWS with six other PEWS currently used in NHS hospitals, for their ability to predict critical care (CC) admission in febrile children attending the emergency department (ED). Design Retrospective single-centre cohort study. Setting Tertiary hospital paediatric ED. Participants A total of 11 449 eligible febrile ED attendances were identified from the electronic patient record over a 2-year period. Seven PEWS scores were calculated (Alder Hey, Bedside, Bristol, National, Newcastle and Scotland PEWS, and the Paediatric Observation Priority Score, using the worst observations recorded during their ED stay. Outcomes The primary outcome was CC admission within 48 hours, the secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS) >48 hours and sepsis-related mortality. Results Of 11 449 febrile children, 134 (1.2%) were admitted to CC within 48 hours of ED presentation, 606 (5.3%) had a hospital LOS >48 hours. 10 (0.09%) children died, 5 (0.04%) were sepsis-related. All seven PEWS demonstrated excellent discrimination for CC admission (range area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) 0.91-0.95) and sepsis-related mortality (range AUC 0.95-0.99), most demonstrated moderate discrimination for hospital LOS (range AUC 0.69-0.75). In CC admission threshold analyses, bedside PEWS (AUC 0.90; 95% CI 0.86 to 0.93) and National PEWS (AUC 0.90; 0.87-0.93) were the most discriminative, both at a threshold of ≥6. Conclusions Our results support the use of the proposed National PEWS in the paediatric ED for the recognition of suspected sepsis to improve outcomes, but further validation is required in other settings and presentations.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85105496137&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044091; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33947731; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044091; https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044091; https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/5/e044091
BMJ
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know