Prognostic value of Modified Early Warning Score generated in a Chinese emergency department: A prospective cohort study

28Citations
Citations of this article
66Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to validate the performance of the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) in a Chinese emergency department and to determine the best cut-off value for in-hospital mortality prediction. Design: A prospective, single-centred observational cohort study. Setting: This study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in South China. Participants: A total of 383 patients aged 18 years or older who presented to the emergency department from 17 May 2017 through 27 September 2017, triaged as category 1, 2 or 3, were enrolled. Outcomes: The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality and admission to the intensive care unit. The secondary outcome was using MEWS to predict hospitalised and discharged patients. Results: A total of 383 patients were included in this study. In-hospital mortality was 13.6% (52/383), and transfer to the intensive care unit was 21.7% (83/383). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of MEWS for in-hospital mortality prediction was 0.83 (95% CI 0.786 to 0.881). When predicting in-hospital mortality with the cut-off point defined as 3.5, 158 patients had MEWS >3.5, with a specificity of 66%, a sensitivity of 87%, an accuracy of 69%, a positive predictive value of 28% and a negative predictive value of 97%, respectively. Conclusion Our findings support the use of MEWS for in-hospital mortality prediction in patients who were triaged category 1, 2 or 3 in a Chinese emergency department. The cut-off value for in-hospital mortality prediction defined in this study was different from that seen in many other studies.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Xie, X., Huang, W., Liu, Q., Tan, W., Pan, L., Wang, L., … Zeng, Y. (2018). Prognostic value of Modified Early Warning Score generated in a Chinese emergency department: A prospective cohort study. BMJ Open, 8(12). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024120

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free