FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4384302402> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4384302402 endingPage "46" @default.
• W4384302402 startingPage "42" @default.
• W4384302402 abstract "To risk stratify ED suspected sepsis (REDS) patients who require admission into low risk and high risk and analyzing inhospital mortality of patients stratied as high risk by REDS score and the performance of REDS score will be compared with widely used qSOFA score prospective observational study Emergency departme Design – Setting – Participant – nt Patients aged ≥18 years who met two Systemic Inammatory Response Syndrome criteria or one Red Flag sepsis criteria on arrival, received intravenous antibiotics for a suspected infection and admitted. in-hospital all cause m Primary outcome measure – Method – ortality based on REDS score The sample size calculation has been done based on the information provided in the article by Sivayoham et al., In the original BMJ article, it is mentioned that The AUROC curve of the REDS score 0.78 (95%CI 0.75 to 0.80) was similar to that of the regression model, negating the need to weight the component scores. The following formula has been used for the calculation of the sample size: where, z1-α/2 = 1.96 for 95% level of condence L = 0.05, error in the estimate of AUC on both sides AUC = 0.78, anticipated area under the curve After all the calculations, the sample size comes to a minimum of 195 cases with the disease. The REDS score had a better AUROC Result – curve for mortality in the high-risk category than its component Q-Sofa scores. Score ≥ 7 associated with high mortality and denitely needs ICU admission. Risk stratication by REDS score might have decreased ICU admission for logistics reasons as compared to Physicians decision of admission based on clinical judgement The REDS score is a simple and Conclusion – objective scoring system that uses widely available variables to risk-stratify ED patients suspected of having sepsis and is better than its component scores. Strengths There are several strengths to our study 1. The broad inclusion criteria allowed the inclusion of a wide variety of patients withsuspected sepsis 2. Very few scoring studies has been conducted in emergency department , most of the scoring studies like SOFA, q-SOFA,s-MISSED were validation studies from ICU 3. Most of scoring studies were prognostication studies & mortality scoring studies , but our study is risk stratication study 4. This is one of few risks stratication scoring system study in India and the rst study to be conducted in ED department apart from PIRO study (AIIMS-Delhi) 5. We had reasonably larger number of patients (n=196) 6. It is a prospective study Limitations There are several limitations to our study 1. The population studied is conned to max super specialty hospital, Delhi. It is a single- center study and requires external validation. 2. Limiting the outcome to in-hospital mortality may have resulted in the underestimation of mortality as patients discharged before 28 days but died within 28 days would not have been recognized. 3. Over 54.1% of patient were admitted in ICU as per physicians' decision while the REDS score suggesting 35.2% admissions in ICU The reason physician's decision for ICU admission were not studied. Some ICU admissions may have occurred for logistical reasons when stafng skill and bed availability in other areas of the hospital were limited. This may have contributed to the lower sensitivity for ICU admissions in the high-risk group. 4. REDS score may not pick-up patients who develop organ dysfunction. We also cannot advocate discharge from the ED based on a REDS score of 0, as the PPV / NPV for a REDS score . 0.267 0.929 for the composite endpoint of death or ICU admission. However, it is clear that the sensitivity for mortality of the REDS score above the cut-off point is greater than the sensitivities of the component score above their respective cut-off points for ED patients. 5. From a practical point, the calculation of the REDS score can only be completed after the initial treatment bundle (antibiotics and uid) is complete and the results of the serum albumin and INR are available." @default.
• W4384302402 created "2023-07-15" @default.
• W4384302402 creator A5003672420 @default.
• W4384302402 creator A5027150108 @default.
• W4384302402 creator A5036105226 @default.
• W4384302402 creator A5077764859 @default.
• W4384302402 date "2023-06-01" @default.
• W4384302402 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W4384302402 title "THE REDS SCORE A NEW SCORING TO RISK STRATIFY EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT SUSPECTED SEPSIS" @default.
• W4384302402 doi "https://doi.org/10.36106/ijar/5104298" @default.
• W4384302402 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4384302402 type Work @default.
• W4384302402 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4384302402 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4384302402 hasAuthorship W4384302402A5003672420 @default.
• W4384302402 hasAuthorship W4384302402A5027150108 @default.
• W4384302402 hasAuthorship W4384302402A5036105226 @default.
• W4384302402 hasAuthorship W4384302402A5077764859 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C11783203 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C129848803 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C187212893 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C194828623 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C23131810 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C2777120189 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C2777671062 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C2778384902 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C2779134260 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C2780724011 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C58471807 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConcept C76318530 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C105795698 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C11783203 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C118552586 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C126322002 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C129848803 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C187212893 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C194828623 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C23131810 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C2777120189 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C2777671062 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C2778384902 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C2779134260 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C2780724011 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C33923547 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C58471807 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C71924100 @default.
• W4384302402 hasConceptScore W4384302402C76318530 @default.
• W4384302402 hasLocation W43843024021 @default.
• W4384302402 hasOpenAccess W4384302402 @default.
• W4384302402 hasPrimaryLocation W43843024021 @default.
• W4384302402 hasRelatedWork W2004119709 @default.
• W4384302402 hasRelatedWork W2116710500 @default.
• W4384302402 hasRelatedWork W2139971516 @default.
• W4384302402 hasRelatedWork W2155116952 @default.
• W4384302402 hasRelatedWork W2889977446 @default.
• W4384302402 hasRelatedWork W2975701633 @default.
• W4384302402 hasRelatedWork W2980180104 @default.
• W4384302402 hasRelatedWork W3017339708 @default.
• W4384302402 hasRelatedWork W4200408991 @default.
• W4384302402 hasRelatedWork W4308280545 @default.
• W4384302402 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4384302402 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4384302402 workType "article" @default.