Cargando…

Comparison of early warning scores for sepsis early identification and prediction in the general ward setting

The objective of this study was to directly compare the ability of commonly used early warning scores (EWS) for early identification and prediction of sepsis in the general ward setting. For general ward patients at a large, academic medical center between early-2012 and mid-2018, common EWS and pat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yu, Sean C, Shivakumar, Nirmala, Betthauser, Kevin, Gupta, Aditi, Lai, Albert M, Kollef, Marin H, Payne, Philip R O, Michelson, Andrew P
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8607822/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34820600
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab062
_version_ 1784602637948157952
author Yu, Sean C
Shivakumar, Nirmala
Betthauser, Kevin
Gupta, Aditi
Lai, Albert M
Kollef, Marin H
Payne, Philip R O
Michelson, Andrew P
author_facet Yu, Sean C
Shivakumar, Nirmala
Betthauser, Kevin
Gupta, Aditi
Lai, Albert M
Kollef, Marin H
Payne, Philip R O
Michelson, Andrew P
author_sort Yu, Sean C
collection PubMed
description The objective of this study was to directly compare the ability of commonly used early warning scores (EWS) for early identification and prediction of sepsis in the general ward setting. For general ward patients at a large, academic medical center between early-2012 and mid-2018, common EWS and patient acuity scoring systems were calculated from electronic health records (EHR) data for patients that both met and did not meet Sepsis-3 criteria. For identification of sepsis at index time, National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS 2) had the highest performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.803 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.795–0.811], area under the precision recall curves: 0.130 [95% CI: 0.121–0.140]) followed NEWS, Modified Early Warning Score, and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA). Using validated thresholds, NEWS 2 also had the highest recall (0.758 [95% CI: 0.736–0.778]) but qSOFA had the highest specificity (0.950 [95% CI: 0.948–0.952]), positive predictive value (0.184 [95% CI: 0.169–0.198]), and F1 score (0.236 [95% CI: 0.220–0.253]). While NEWS 2 outperformed all other compared EWS and patient acuity scores, due to the low prevalence of sepsis, all scoring systems were prone to false positives (low positive predictive value without drastic sacrifices in sensitivity), thus leaving room for more computationally advanced approaches.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8607822
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86078222021-11-23 Comparison of early warning scores for sepsis early identification and prediction in the general ward setting Yu, Sean C Shivakumar, Nirmala Betthauser, Kevin Gupta, Aditi Lai, Albert M Kollef, Marin H Payne, Philip R O Michelson, Andrew P JAMIA Open Brief Communications The objective of this study was to directly compare the ability of commonly used early warning scores (EWS) for early identification and prediction of sepsis in the general ward setting. For general ward patients at a large, academic medical center between early-2012 and mid-2018, common EWS and patient acuity scoring systems were calculated from electronic health records (EHR) data for patients that both met and did not meet Sepsis-3 criteria. For identification of sepsis at index time, National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS 2) had the highest performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.803 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.795–0.811], area under the precision recall curves: 0.130 [95% CI: 0.121–0.140]) followed NEWS, Modified Early Warning Score, and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA). Using validated thresholds, NEWS 2 also had the highest recall (0.758 [95% CI: 0.736–0.778]) but qSOFA had the highest specificity (0.950 [95% CI: 0.948–0.952]), positive predictive value (0.184 [95% CI: 0.169–0.198]), and F1 score (0.236 [95% CI: 0.220–0.253]). While NEWS 2 outperformed all other compared EWS and patient acuity scores, due to the low prevalence of sepsis, all scoring systems were prone to false positives (low positive predictive value without drastic sacrifices in sensitivity), thus leaving room for more computationally advanced approaches. Oxford University Press 2021-08-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8607822/ /pubmed/34820600 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab062 Text en © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Brief Communications
Yu, Sean C
Shivakumar, Nirmala
Betthauser, Kevin
Gupta, Aditi
Lai, Albert M
Kollef, Marin H
Payne, Philip R O
Michelson, Andrew P
Comparison of early warning scores for sepsis early identification and prediction in the general ward setting
title Comparison of early warning scores for sepsis early identification and prediction in the general ward setting
title_full Comparison of early warning scores for sepsis early identification and prediction in the general ward setting
title_fullStr Comparison of early warning scores for sepsis early identification and prediction in the general ward setting
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of early warning scores for sepsis early identification and prediction in the general ward setting
title_short Comparison of early warning scores for sepsis early identification and prediction in the general ward setting
title_sort comparison of early warning scores for sepsis early identification and prediction in the general ward setting
topic Brief Communications
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8607822/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34820600
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab062
work_keys_str_mv AT yuseanc comparisonofearlywarningscoresforsepsisearlyidentificationandpredictioninthegeneralwardsetting
AT shivakumarnirmala comparisonofearlywarningscoresforsepsisearlyidentificationandpredictioninthegeneralwardsetting
AT betthauserkevin comparisonofearlywarningscoresforsepsisearlyidentificationandpredictioninthegeneralwardsetting
AT guptaaditi comparisonofearlywarningscoresforsepsisearlyidentificationandpredictioninthegeneralwardsetting
AT laialbertm comparisonofearlywarningscoresforsepsisearlyidentificationandpredictioninthegeneralwardsetting
AT kollefmarinh comparisonofearlywarningscoresforsepsisearlyidentificationandpredictioninthegeneralwardsetting
AT paynephilipro comparisonofearlywarningscoresforsepsisearlyidentificationandpredictioninthegeneralwardsetting
AT michelsonandrewp comparisonofearlywarningscoresforsepsisearlyidentificationandpredictioninthegeneralwardsetting