IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0265559.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The use of early warning system scores in prehospital and emergency department settings to predict clinical deterioration: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Gigi Guan
  • Crystal Man Ying Lee
  • Stephen Begg
  • Angela Crombie
  • George Mnatzaganian

Abstract

Background: It is unclear which Early Warning System (EWS) score best predicts in-hospital deterioration of patients when applied in the Emergency Department (ED) or prehospital setting. Methods: This systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis assessed the predictive abilities of five commonly used EWS scores (National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and its updated version NEWS2, Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Rapid Acute Physiological Score (RAPS), and Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage (CART)). Outcomes of interest included admission to intensive care unit (ICU), and 3-to-30-day mortality following hospital admission. Using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models, pooled estimates were calculated according to the EWS score cut-off points, outcomes, and study setting. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-regressions investigated between-study heterogeneity. Funnel plots tested for publication bias. The SR is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020191254). Results: Overall, 11,565 articles were identified, of which 20 were included. In the ED setting, MEWS, and NEWS at cut-off points of 3, 4, or 6 had similar pooled diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) to predict 30-day mortality, ranging from 4.05 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 2.35–6.99) to 6.48 (95% CI 1.83–22.89), p = 0.757. MEWS at a cut-off point ≥3 had a similar DOR when predicting ICU admission (5.54 (95% CI 2.02–15.21)). MEWS ≥5 and NEWS ≥7 had DORs of 3.05 (95% CI 2.00–4.65) and 4.74 (95% CI 4.08–5.50), respectively, when predicting 30-day mortality in patients presenting with sepsis in the ED. In the prehospital setting, the EWS scores significantly predicted 3-day mortality but failed to predict 30-day mortality. Conclusion: EWS scores’ predictability of clinical deterioration is improved when the score is applied to patients treated in the hospital setting. However, the high thresholds used and the failure of the scores to predict 30-day mortality make them less suited for use in the prehospital setting.

Suggested Citation

  • Gigi Guan & Crystal Man Ying Lee & Stephen Begg & Angela Crombie & George Mnatzaganian, 2022. "The use of early warning system scores in prehospital and emergency department settings to predict clinical deterioration: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-16, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0265559
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265559
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0265559
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0265559&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0265559?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0265559. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.