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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |