Dataset Information

The Prognostic Accuracy of National Early Warning Score 2 on Predicting Clinical Deterioration for Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) is recommended for the risk stratification of COVID-19 patients, but little is known about its ability to detect severe cases. Therefore, our purpose is to assess the prognostic accuracy of NEWS2 on predicting clinical deterioration for patients with COVID-19. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from December 2019 to March 2021. Clinical deterioration was defined as the need for intensive respiratory support, admission to the intensive care unit, or in-hospital death. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were pooled by using the bivariate random-effects model. Overall prognostic performance was summarized by using the area under the curve (AUC). We performed subgroup analyses to assess the prognostic accuracy of NEWS2 in different conditions. Results: Eighteen studies with 6,922 participants were included. The NEWS2 of five or more was commonly used for predicting clinical deterioration. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.82, 0.67, and 0.82, respectively. Benefitting from adding a new SpO₂ scoring scale for patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure, the NEWS2 showed better sensitivity (0.82 vs. 0.75) and discrimination (0.82 vs. 0.76) than the original NEWS. In addition, the NEWS2 was a sensitive method (sensitivity: 0.88) for predicting short-term deterioration within 72 h. Conclusions: The NEWS2 had moderate sensitivity and specificity in predicting the deterioration of patients with COVID-19. Our results support the use of NEWS2 monitoring as a sensitive method to initially assess COVID-19 patients at hospital admission, although it has a relatively high false-trigger rate. Our findings indicated that the development of enhanced or modified NEWS may be necessary.

SUBMITTER: Zhang K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8298908 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany studies have explored the accuracy of the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) in predicting mortality in prehospital and emergency settings, but their findings are inconsistent. Whether NEWS2 is reliable for the pre-examination and triage of patients in prehospital settings and emergency departments remains debatable. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of NEWS2 in predicting mortality in prehospital settings and emergency departments.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wan Fang Data, Vip Database and SinoMed from the inception of each database to January 2023. The inclusion criteria: (I) patients in the prehospital settings or emergency departments; (II) the NEWS2 for predicting 2-day mortality, 30-day mortality, and in-hospital mortality; (III) sufficient data, such as sensitivity, specificity, overall survival, and deaths, were provided for the study; (IV) the type of study was accuracy prediction study. Two authors independently extracted data, including authors, year of publication, country of origin, study design, sample size, threshold cutoff values of NEWS2, and mortality. The PROBAST was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.ResultsThirty studies with 185,835 participants were included. Among the 30 included studies, 13 have a high risk of bias, and 17 have a low risk of bias. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC of 2-day mortality (early mortality), 30-day mortality and in-hospital mortality were 0.81 vs. 0.76 vs. 0.72 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.80), 0.81 vs. 0.69 vs. 0.78 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.93) and 0.88 vs. 0.80 vs. 0.78 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.82), respectively.ConclusionsNEWS2 has excellent sensitivity and specificity in predicting early mortality in patients in the prehospitals setting and emergency departments. Nonetheless, it has poor performance in predicting in-hospital mortality and 30-day mortality. Our findings underpin the use of NEWS2 as a pre-examination and triage tool to predict early death in the prehospital settings and emergency departments. To improve the predictive accuracy, it should be used to monitor patients continuously rather than at a single point-in-time.

Project description:Background: Early Warning Scores (EWS), including the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) and Modified NEWS (NEWS-C), have been recommended for triage decision in patients with COVID-19. However, the effectiveness of these EWS in COVID-19 has not been fully validated. The study aimed to investigate the predictive value of EWS to detect clinical deterioration in patients with COVID-19. Methods: Between February 7, 2020 and February 17, 2020, patients confirmed with COVID-19 were screened for this study. The outcomes were early deterioration of respiratory function (EDRF) and need for intensive respiratory support (IRS) during the treatment process. The EDRF was defined as changes in the respiratory component of the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score at day 3 (ΔSOFAresp = SOFA resp at day 3-SOFAresp on admission), in which the positive value reflects clinical deterioration. The IRS was defined as the use of high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy, noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation. The performances of EWS including NEWS, NEWS 2, NEWS-C, Modified Early Warning Scores (MEWS), Hamilton Early Warning Scores (HEWS), and quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) for predicting EDRF and IRS were compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results: A total of 116 patients were included in this study. Of them, 27 patients (23.3%) developed EDRF and 24 patients (20.7%) required IRS. Among these EWS, NEWS-C was the most accurate scoring system for predicting EDRF [AUROC 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69-0.89)] and IRS [AUROC 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.96)], while NEWS 2 had the lowest accuracy in predicting EDRF [AUROC 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46-0.720)] and IRS [AUROC 0.69 (95% CI, 0.57-0.81)]. A NEWS-C ≥ 9 had a sensitivity of 59.3% and a specificity of 85.4% for predicting EDRF. For predicting IRS, a NEWS-C ≥ 9 had a sensitivity of 75% and a specificity of 88%. Conclusions: The NEWS-C was the most accurate scoring system among common EWS to identify patients with COVID-19 at risk for EDRF and need for IRS. The NEWS-C could be recommended as an early triage tool for patients with COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundModified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) are widely used in predicting the mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission of critically ill patients. This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the prognostic value of NEWS and MEWS for predicting ICU readmission, mortality, and related outcomes in critically ill patients at the time of ICU discharge.MethodsThis multicenter, prospective, observational study was conducted over a year, from April 2019 to March 2020, in the general ICUs of two university-affiliated hospitals in Northwest Iran. MEWS and NEWS were compared based on the patients' outcomes (including mortality, ICU readmission, time to readmission, discharge type, mechanical ventilation (MV), MV duration, and multiple organ failure after readmission) using the univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the outcome predictability of MEWS and NEWS.ResultsA total of 410 ICU patients were enrolled in this study. According to multivariable logistic regression analysis, both MEWS and NEWS were predictors of ICU readmission, time to readmission, MV status after readmission, MV duration, and multiple organ failure after readmission. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for predicting mortality was 0.91 (95% CI = 0.88-0.94, P < 0.0001) for the NEWS and 0.88 (95% CI = 0.84-0.91, P < 0.0001) for the MEWS. There was no significant difference between the AUC of the NEWS and the MEWS for predicting mortality (P = 0.082). However, for ICU readmission (0.84 vs. 0.71), time to readmission (0.82 vs. 0.67), MV after readmission (0.83 vs. 0.72), MV duration (0.81 vs. 0.67), and multiple organ failure (0.833 vs. 0.710), the AUCs of MEWS were significantly greater (P < 0.001).ConclusionNational Early Warning Score and MEWS values of >4 demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity in identifying the risk of mortality for the patients' discharge from ICU. However, we found that the MEWS showed superiority over the NEWS score in predicting other outcomes. Eventually, MEWS could be considered an efficient prediction score for morbidity and mortality of critically ill patients.

Project description:ObjectivesPrevious studies have looked at National Early Warning Score performance in predicting in-hospital deterioration and death, but data are lacking with respect to patient outcomes following implementation of National Early Warning Score. We sought to determine the effectiveness of National Early Warning Score implementation on predicting and preventing patient deterioration in a clinical setting.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingTertiary care academic facility and a community hospital.PatientsPatients 18 years old or older hospitalized from March 1, 2014, to February 28, 2015, during preimplementation of National Early Warning Score to August 1, 2015, to July 31, 2016, after National Early Warning Score was implemented.InterventionsImplementation of National Early Warning Score within the electronic health record and associated best practice alert.Measurements and main resultsIn this study of 85,322 patients (42,402 patients pre-National Early Warning Score and 42,920 patients post-National Early Warning Score implementation), the primary outcome of rate of ICU transfer or death did not change after National Early Warning Score implementation, with adjusted hazard ratio of 0.94 (0.84-1.05) and 0.90 (0.77-1.05) at our academic and community hospital, respectively. In total, 175,357 best practice advisories fired during the study period, with the best practice advisory performing better at the community hospital than the academic at predicting an event within 12 hours 7.4% versus 2.2% of the time, respectively. Retraining National Early Warning Score with newly generated hospital-specific coefficients improved model performance.ConclusionsAt both our academic and community hospital, National Early Warning Score had poor performance characteristics and was generally ignored by frontline nursing staff. As a result, National Early Warning Score implementation had no appreciable impact on defined clinical outcomes. Refitting of the model using site-specific data improved performance and supports validating predictive models on local data.

Project description:We sought to validate prognostic scores in coronavirus disease 2019 including National Early Warning Score, Modified Early Warning Score, and age-based modifications, and define their performance characteristics.DesignWe analyzed prospectively collected data from the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial. National Early Warning Score was collected daily during the trial, Modified Early Warning Score was calculated, and age applied to both scores. We assessed prognostic value for the end points of recovery, mechanical ventilation, and death for score at enrollment, average, and slope of score over the first 48 hours.SettingA multisite international inpatient trial.PatientsA total of 1,062 adult nonpregnant inpatients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia.InterventionsAdaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1 randomized participants to receive remdesivir or placebo. The prognostic value of predictive scores was evaluated in both groups separately to assess for differential performance in the setting of remdesivir treatment.Measurements and main resultsFor mortality, baseline National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score were weakly to moderately prognostic (c-index, 0.60-0.68), and improved with addition of age (c-index, 0.66-0.74). For recovery, baseline National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score demonstrated somewhat better prognostic ability (c-index, 0.65-0.69); however, National Early Warning Score+age and Modified Early Warning Score+age further improved performance (c-index, 0.68-0.71). For deterioration, baseline National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score were weakly to moderately prognostic (c-index, 0.59-0.69) and improved with addition of age (c-index, 0.63-0.70). All prognostic performance improvements due to addition of age were significant (p < 0.05).ConclusionsIn the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 1 cohort, National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score demonstrated moderate prognostic performance in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019, with improvement in predictive ability for National Early Warning Score+age and Modified Early Warning Score+age. Area under receiver operating curve for National Early Warning Score and Modified Early Warning Score improved in patients receiving remdesivir versus placebo early in the pandemic for recovery and mortality. Although these scores are simple and readily obtainable in myriad settings, in our data set, they were insufficiently predictive to completely replace clinical judgment in coronavirus disease 2019 and may serve best as an adjunct to triage, disposition, and resourcing decisions.

Dataset Information

The Prognostic Accuracy of National Early Warning Score 2 on Predicting Clinical Deterioration for Patients With COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets