Literature DB >> 28935477

The clinical usefulness of prognostic prediction models in critical illness.

Tim Baker1, Martin Gerdin2.   

Abstract

Critical illness is any immediately life-threatening disease or trauma and results in several million deaths globally every year. Responsive hospital systems for managing critical illness include quick and accurate identification of the critically ill patients. Prognostic prediction models are widely used for this aim. To be clinically useful, a model should have good predictive performance, often measured using discrimination and calibration. This is not sufficient though: a model also needs to be tested in the setting where it will be used, it should be user-friendly and should guide decision making and actions. The clinical usefulness and impact on patient outcomes of prediction models has not been greatly studied. The focus of research should shift from attempts to optimise the precision of models to real-world intervention studies to compare the performance of models and their impacts on outcomes.
Copyright © 2017 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Critical care; Critical illness; Decision support techniques; Emergency medical services; Hospital rapid response team; Prognosis

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28935477     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejim.2017.09.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Intern Med        ISSN: 0953-6205            Impact factor:   4.487


  7 in total

1.  Developing a feasible and valid scoring system for critically ill patients in resource-limited settings.

Authors:  Gentle Sunder Shrestha
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 9.097

2.  MEWS++: Enhancing the Prediction of Clinical Deterioration in Admitted Patients through a Machine Learning Model.

Authors:  Arash Kia; Prem Timsina; Himanshu N Joshi; Eyal Klang; Rohit R Gupta; Robert M Freeman; David L Reich; Max S Tomlinson; Joel T Dudley; Roopa Kohli-Seth; Madhu Mazumdar; Matthew A Levin
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 4.241

3.  Adjusting Early Warning Score by clinical assessment: a study protocol for a Danish cluster-randomised, multicentre study of an Individual Early Warning Score (I-EWS).

Authors:  Pernille B Nielsen; Martin Schultz; Caroline Sophie Langkjaer; Anne Marie Kodal; Niels Egholm Pedersen; John Asger Petersen; Theis Lange; Michael Dan Arvig; Christian Sahlholt Meyhoff; Morten Bestle; Bibi Hølge-Hazelton; Gitte Bunkenborg; Anne Lippert; Ove Andersen; Lars Simon Rasmussen; Kasper Karmark Iversen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-01-07       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Ability of a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score to predict mortality among sepsis patients in a resource-limited setting.

Authors:  Bodin Khwannimit; Rungsun Bhurayanontachai; Veerapong Vattanavanit
Journal:  Acute Crit Care       Date:  2022-08-04

5.  Factors associated with in-hospital mortality of patients admitted to an intensive care unit in a tertiary hospital in Malawi.

Authors:  Mtisunge Kachingwe; Raphael Kazidule Kayambankadzanja; Wezzie Kumwenda Mwafulirwa; Singatiya Stella Chikumbanje; Tim Baker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-30       Impact factor: 3.752

6.  The value of vital sign trends in predicting and monitoring clinical deterioration: A systematic review.

Authors:  Idar Johan Brekke; Lars Håland Puntervoll; Peter Bank Pedersen; John Kellett; Mikkel Brabrand
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Prognostic prediction tools and clinician communication: a qualitative study of the effect of the STUMBL tool on clinical practice.

Authors:  Claire O'Neill; Hayley A Hutchings; Zoe Abbott; Ceri Battle
Journal:  BMC Emerg Med       Date:  2020-05-11
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.