Log In Sign up
The largest database of trusted experimental protocols
> Procedures > Health Care Activity > Early Warning Score

Early Warning Score

Early Warning Score is a clinical tool used to quickly detect and respond to signs of patient deterioration.
It assigns points based on measured vital signs, such as blood pressure, heart rate, and respiratory rate, to identify patients at risk of adverse outcomes.
This scoring system helps healthcare providers take early action to prevent further decline and improve patient outcomes.
By recognizing and addressing potential issues early, the Early Warning Score optimization process can enhance research accuracy and workflow for researchers studying patient monitoring and treatment protocols.

Most cited protocols related to «Early Warning Score»

1
Evaluating COVID-19 Recovery Outcomes
The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined as the first day, during the 28 days after enrollment, on which a patient met the criteria for category 1, 2, or 3 on the eight-category ordinal scale. The categories are as follows: 1, not hospitalized and no limitations of activities; 2, not hospitalized, with limitation of activities, home oxygen requirement, or both; 3, hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen and no longer requiring ongoing medical care (used if hospitalization was extended for infection-control or other nonmedical reasons); 4, hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen but requiring ongoing medical care (related to Covid-19 or to other medical conditions); 5, hospitalized, requiring any supplemental oxygen; 6, hospitalized, requiring noninvasive ventilation or use of high-flow oxygen devices; 7, hospitalized, receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO); and 8, death.
The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15, as assessed on the ordinal scale. Other secondary outcomes included the time to improvement of one category and of two categories from the baseline ordinal score; clinical status as assessed on the ordinal scale at days 3, 5, 8, 11, 15, 22, and 29; mean change in status on the ordinal scale from day 1 to days 3, 5, 8, 11, 15, 22, and 29; time to discharge or National Early Warning Score of 2 or less (maintained for 24 hours), whichever occurred first; change in the National Early Warning Score from day 1 to days 3, 5, 8, 11, 15, 22, and 29; number of days with supplemental oxygen, with noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen, and with invasive ventilation or ECMO up to day 29 (if these were being used at baseline); the incidence and duration of new oxygen use, of noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen, and of invasive ventilation or ECMO; number of days of hospitalization up to day 29; and mortality at 14 and 28 days after enrollment. Secondary safety outcome measures included grade 3 and 4 adverse events and serious adverse events that occurred during the trial, discontinuation or temporary suspension of infusions, and changes in assessed laboratory values over time.
Beigel J.H., Tomashek K.M., Dodd L.E., Mehta A.K., Zingman B.S., Kalil A.C., Hohmann E., Chu H.Y., Luetkemeyer A., Kline S., Lopez de Castilla D., Finberg R.W., Dierberg K., Tapson V., Hsieh L., Patterson T.F., Paredes R., Sweeney D.A., Short W.R., Touloumi G., Lye D.C., Ohmagari N., Oh M.D., Ruiz-Palacios G.M., Benfield T., Fätkenheuer G., Kortepeter M.G., Atmar R.L., Creech C.B., Lundgren J., Babiker A.G., Pett S., Neaton J.D., Burgess T.H., Bonnett T., Green M., Makowski M., Osinusi A., Nayak S, & Lane H.C. (2020). Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report. The New England Journal of Medicine.
Publication 2020
COVID 19 Early Warning Score Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Hospitalization Infection Control Mechanical Ventilation Medical Devices Noninvasive Ventilation Oxygen Patient Discharge Patients Safety
2
Lopinavir-Ritonavir for COVID-19 Hospitalization
The trial was initiated in rapid response to the Covid-19 public health emergency, at which time there was very limited information about clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with Covid-19. The original total sample size was set at 160, since it would provide the trial with 80% power to detect a difference, at a two-sided significance level of α=0.05, of 8 days in the median time to clinical improvement between the two groups, assuming that the median time in the standard-care group was 20 days and that 75% of the patients would reach clinical improvement. The planned enrollment of 160 patients in the trial occurred quickly, and the assessment at that point was that the trial was underpowered; thus, a decision was made to continue enrollment by investigators. Subsequently, when another agent (remdesivir) became available for clinical trials, we decided to suspend enrollment in this trial.
Primary efficacy analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis and included all the patients who had undergone randomization. The time to clinical improvement was assessed after all patients had reached day 28, with failure to reach clinical improvement or death before day 28 considered as right-censored at day 28 (right-censoring occurs when an event may have occurred after the last time a person was under observation, but the specific timing of the event is unknown). The time to clinical improvement was portrayed by Kaplan–Meier plot and compared with a log-rank test. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated by means of the Cox proportional-hazards model. Five patients who had been assigned to the lopinavir–ritonavir group did not receive any doses (three of them died within 24 hours) but were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, since no reciprocal removals occurred in the standard-care group. A modified intention-to-treat analysis that excluded three early deaths was also performed. Post hoc analyses include subgroup analysis for National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2)19 of 5 or below or greater than 5 and those who underwent randomization up to 12 days or more than 12 days after the onset of illness.
Because the statistical analysis plan did not include a provision for correcting for multiplicity in tests for secondary or other outcomes, results are reported as point estimates and 95% confidence intervals. The widths of the confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity, so the intervals should not be used to infer definitive treatment effects for secondary outcomes. Safety analyses were based on the patients’ actual treatment exposure. Statistical analyses were conducted with SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute).
Cao B., Wang Y., Wen D., Liu W., Wang J., Fan G., Ruan L., Song B., Cai Y., Wei M., Li X., Xia J., Chen N., Xiang J., Yu T., Bai T., Xie X., Zhang L., Li C., Yuan Y., Chen H., Li H., Huang H., Tu S., Gong F., Liu Y., Wei Y., Dong C., Zhou F., Gu X., Xu J., Liu Z., Zhang Y., Li H., Shang L., Wang K., Li K., Zhou X., Dong X., Qu Z., Lu S., Hu X., Ruan S., Luo S., Wu J., Peng L., Cheng F., Pan L., Zou J., Jia C., Wang J., Liu X., Wang S., Wu X., Ge Q., He J., Zhan H., Qiu F., Guo L., Huang C., Jaki T., Hayden F.G., Horby P.W., Zhang D, & Wang C. (2020). A Trial of Lopinavir–Ritonavir in Adults Hospitalized with Severe Covid-19. The New England Journal of Medicine.
Publication 2020
COVID 19 Early Warning Score Emergencies lopinavir-ritonavir drug combination Patients remdesivir Safety
3
Systematic Review of Clinical Reference Ranges

Protocol full text hidden due to copyright restrictions

Open the protocol to access the free full text link

Publication 2011
Early Warning Score Eligibility Determination Genetic Heterogeneity Resuscitation
4
Remdesivir and Baricitinib for COVID-19 Recovery
The primary outcome measure was the time to recovery, with the day of recovery defined as the first day, during the 28 days after enrollment, on which a patient attained category 1, 2, or 3 on the eight-category ordinal scale. The competing event of death was handled in a manner similar to the Fine–Gray competing-risk approach.13 (link) The categories are the same as those used in ACTT-11 (link) and are listed in Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix. The primary analysis was a stratified log-rank test of the time to recovery with remdesivir plus baricitinib as compared with remdesivir plus placebo, stratified according to baseline disease severity (i.e., score on the ordinal scale of 4 or 5 vs. 6 or 7 at enrollment).
The key secondary outcome measure was clinical status at day 15, based on the eight-category ordinal scale. Other secondary outcome measures included the time to improvement by one or two categories from the ordinal score at baseline; clinical status, as assessed on the ordinal scale at days 3, 5, 8, 11, 15, 22, and 29; mean change in the ordinal score from day 1 to days 3, 5, 8, 11, 15, 22, and 29; time to discharge or to a National Early Warning Score of 2 or less (on a scale from 0 to 20, with higher scores indicating greater clinical risk) that was maintained for 24 hours, whichever occurred first; change in the National Early Warning Score from day 1 to days 3, 5, 8, 11, 15, 22, and 29; number of days of receipt of supplemental oxygen, noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen, and invasive ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) up to day 29 (if these were being used at baseline); the incidence and duration of new use of oxygen, new use of noninvasive ventilation or high-flow oxygen, and new use of invasive ventilation or ECMO; duration of hospitalization up to day 29 (patients who remained hospitalized at day 29 had a value of 28 days); and mortality at 14 and 28 days after enrollment. Secondary safety outcomes included grade 3 and 4 adverse events and serious adverse events that occurred through day 29, discontinuation or temporary suspension of trial-product administration for any reason, and changes in assessed laboratory values over time. There was a single primary hypothesis test. For secondary outcomes, no adjustments for multiplicity were made.
Prespecified subgroups were defined according to sex, disease severity (as defined for stratification and by an ordinal score of 4, 5, 6, and 7 at enrollment), age (18 to 39 years, 40 to 64 years, or ≥65 years), race, ethnic group, duration of symptoms before randomization (measured as ≤10 days or >10 days, in quartiles, and as the median), site location, and presence of coexisting conditions.
Kalil A.C., Patterson T.F., Mehta A.K., Tomashek K.M., Wolfe C.R., Ghazaryan V., Marconi V.C., Ruiz-Palacios G.M., Hsieh L., Kline S., Tapson V., Iovine N.M., Jain M.K., Sweeney D.A., El Sahly H.M., Branche A.R., Regalado Pineda J., Lye D.C., Sandkovsky U., Luetkemeyer A.F., Cohen S.H., Finberg R.W., Jackson P.E., Taiwo B., Paules C.I., Arguinchona H., Goepfert P., Ahuja N., Frank M., Oh M.D., Kim E.S., Tan S.Y., Mularski R.A., Nielsen H., Ponce P.O., Taylor B.S., Larson L., Rouphael N.G., Saklawi Y., Cantos V.D., Ko E.R., Engemann J.J., Amin A.N., Watanabe M., Billings J., Elie M.C., Davey R.T., Burgess T.H., Ferreira J., Green M., Makowski M., Cardoso A., de Bono S., Bonnett T., Proschan M., Deye G.A., Dempsey W., Nayak S.U., Dodd L.E, & Beigel J.H. (2020). Baricitinib plus Remdesivir for Hospitalized Adults with Covid-19. The New England Journal of Medicine.
Publication 2020
baricitinib Early Warning Score Ethnicity Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Hospitalization Noninvasive Ventilation Oxygen Patient Discharge Patients Placebos remdesivir Safety
5
Evaluating Early Warning Prediction Models
Predicted probabilities were calculated for each observation in the validation dataset from each derived model. In order to put the accuracy results in perspective with prior studies, the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), a commonly utilized rapid response team activation tool, was also calculated (13 (link)). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was then determined using whether an event occurred within twenty-four hours of each individual observation because this is a standard metric for early warning score comparisons (8 (link),14 (link)). A plot of the percentage of observations above a probability threshold versus the percentage of observations detected that were followed by an outcome (i.e. sensitivity), previously described as an “early warning score efficiency curve,” was created for the logistic regression models, MEWS, and the most accurate machine learning method (14 (link)). A pre-defined comparison of the percentage of observations in the validation dataset above the 75% sensitivity cut-off for each model was utilized (14 (link)). Model calibration, which is the agreement between a model’s predicted probability and the actual probability of an event, was measured in several ways using the discrete-time framework in the validation dataset (15 ). First, the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit (H-L) test was calculated for each model, and plots of predicted versus actual risk across risk deciles were created. In addition, the calibration slope and calibration intercept (i.e. Cox calibration) were also calculated. To visualize the contribution of the predictor variables in the most accurate model, a variable importance measure that utilized the change in the Gini index was used (10 ). The effects of the most accurate predictor variables across different values and 3-D interaction plots were also created for the most accurate model using partial dependence plots (16 ). All analyses were performed using R version 3.1.1 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria) and Stata version 13.1 (StataCorps; College Station, Texas). A two-tailed p-value <0.05 denoted statistical significance.
Churpek M.M., Yuen T.C., Winslow C., Meltzer D.O., Kattan M.W, & Edelson D.P. (2016). Multicenter Comparison of Machine Learning Methods and Conventional Regression for Predicting Clinical Deterioration on the Wards. Critical care medicine, 44(2), 368-374.
Publication 2016
Early Warning Score Hospital Rapid Response Team Hypersensitivity

Most recents protocols related to «Early Warning Score»

1
COVID-19 Severity Prediction Scoring System
Numeric variables were reported as means and Standard Deviations (SDs) or medians and Interquartile Ranges (IQR), according to their distribution. Occasionally, variables were also stratified into categories to simplify their clinical interpretation. Categorical variables were reported as counts and proportions. The authors then used demographic, clinical, and laboratory data to develop prediction scoring systems.
The authors randomly split our participants into derivation and validation samples using a 1:1 ratio and selected 25 variables to feed our models based on their clinical relevance and causal relations: (1) Demographics: age, sex, race/ethnicity; (2) Clinical history: hypertension, diabetes mellitus, heart disease, stroke history, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, rheumatologic disease, cancer; (3) COVID-19 symptoms: fever, muscle pain, dyspnea, cough, dysgeusia or anosmia, headache, diarrhea; (4) Admission laboratory: hemoglobin, neutrophile-to-lymphocyte ratio, creatinine, C-reactive protein. The model including the complete list of independent variables for each outcome was defined as Model 1. As sensitivity analyses, the authors also examined our models excluding the reported COVID-19 symptoms, as these variables were more likely to be affected by information bias, particularly among patients with a more severe clinical presentation on admission. The model excluding COVID-19 symptoms for each outcome was defined as Model 2.
Subsequently, the authors explored the association between each variable of interest and the primary outcomes in univariable logistic regressions and used stepwise logistic regression models to select the final predictors to build our scoring system (variables with p-values < 0.1 were retained). The authors used variation inflation factors to assess for collinearity.
In accordance with the resulting models, the authors attributed points to each predictor dividing their respective beta coefficients by the lowest available beta coefficient and rounding the results to the nearest integer (0 or 5). The authors then used the sum of these points to estimate risk scores for our sample and examine their accuracy to predict hospital death and ICU admission. The authors validated the performances of the risk scoring systems using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analyses and test characteristics, including the Youden index, sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values. The authors used the Youden index to identify optimal cut-offs for each model according to the outcome of interest.
The authors also compared the predictive performances from our models and the National Early Warning Score-2 (NEWS-2)19 (link) and 4C Mortality Score.20 (link) The authors used reclassification tables and measures of net reclassification improvement (the net percentage events correctly classified upward) and integrated discrimination improvement (difference in discrimination slopes between two models).
Avelino-Silva V.I., Avelino-Silva T.J., Aliberti M.J., Ferreira J.C., Cobello Junior V., Silva K.R., Pompeu J.E., Antonangelo L., Magri M.M., Filho T.E., Souza H.P, & Kallás E.G. (2023). Prediction of intensive care admission and hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients using demographics and baseline laboratory data. Clinics, 78, 100183.
Publication 2023
Cerebrovascular Accident Chronic Obstructive Airway Disease Collagen Diseases Cough COVID 19 C Reactive Protein Creatinine Diabetes Mellitus Diarrhea Discrimination, Psychology Dyspnea Early Warning Score Ethnicity Fever Headache Heart Diseases Hemoglobin High Blood Pressures Hypersensitivity Lymphocyte Malignant Neoplasms Myalgia Neutrophil Patients
2
Frailty, Red Cell Distribution Width, and Mortality
This study is a secondary analysis of an observational cohort study in frail older ED patients that was performed in an ED of a teaching hospital in Finland. In the primary study we included patients who were ≥ 75 years of age, had a score between 4 to 9 on the 9-point Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) [34 (link)], and were registered residents of the hospital’s service area. ED visit data were collected between December 11th, 2018 and June 7th, 2019. The included patients were followed up from electronic health records. Methods for the primary study have been described in detail in our previous article [42 (link)].
The clinical laboratory service of the ED routinely gives RDW values (% value as integer) for all blood counts tested. Besides the clinical laboratory service, the ED has point-of-care testing equipment available, which does not provide RDW values. Point-of care testing is typically preferred, if more extensive laboratory testing is not anticipated based on patient’s chief complaint or condition. For the secondary analysis conducted here, those patient visits from the primary study who had the CFS score 4–8 and had RDW tested 0–48 h after ED admission were included. If more than one blood count was drawn from a patient within 48 h of ED admission, the result of the first laboratory test was used for the analysis. Patients who had a CFS score of 9 were excluded because such patients are defined as having a short life expectancy < 6 months, but otherwise not living with severe frailty.
Nonparametric baseline data were presented with interquartile ranges (IQR). The outcome measure was 30-day mortality. Patients were allocated to six classes based on their RDW value: ≤ 13%, 14%, 15%, 16%, 17%, and ≥ 18%. We used same cut-off values as a recent study to enable comparison of our results in frail ED patients to general older adult ED patient population [42 (link)]. Mortality rate was calculated for each class. The Cochran–Armitage test for trend was used to test the statistical significance of the trend of increasing mortality with higher RDW values.
Crude and adjusted ORs with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of a one-class increase in RDW for 30-day mortality were calculated. Univariate and multivariate models of binary logistic regression analysis were used for crude and adjusted ORs, respectively. Age, sex, and CFS score were considered as potential confounders and were included in the analysis.
As a sensitivity analysis to assess if categorisation of the RDW values has impact on the results, we performed a regression analysis with RDW as continuous variable. We also performed a sensitivity analysis with haemoglobin as a potential confounder, because haemoglobin level is directly related to red blood cells, like RDW is, and may be associated with mortality.
From clinical perspective, we were interested whether RDW is independent of vital parameters. The National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), a widely used prognostic score based on common vital signs, was included in the baseline data for our previous study [42 (link)]. We performed an additional testing by adjusting with the NEWS2 besides other potential confounders used in the regression analysis.
A p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. GraphPad Prism software, version 9.4.1 (Graphpad Software LCC) was used for the Cochran–Armitage test. SPSS software, version 28 (IBM) was used for all other statistical analyses.
The primary study which this secondary analysis was based on, was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on December 20th, 2018, identifier NCT03783234.
Alakare J., Kemp K., Strandberg T., Castrén M., Tolonen J, & Harjola V.P. (2023). Red cell distribution width and mortality in older patients with frailty in the emergency department. BMC Emergency Medicine, 23, 24.
Publication 2023
BLOOD Clinical Laboratory Services Early Warning Score Erythrocytes Frail Older Adults Hemoglobin Hemoglobin A Hypersensitivity Patients prisma Signs, Vital
3
Validating PPG Wristband Vital Signs
The obtained vital parameters from the PPG wristband and the reference monitors were synchronized using a means of cross-correlation on the HR signals, and synchronized signals were visually inspected and corrected if necessary. Patients with a reference recording length shorter than 15 minutes were excluded from the analysis.
Low-quality measurements were excluded from both the PPG and monitor data. For the PPG wristband vitals, a low quality index can originate from motion artefacts or a low signal-to-noise ratio. For HR and RR, detection of arrhythmia using an arrhythmia detection algorithm would also lead to a low quality score [21 (link)]. For the reference monitor, the logged ECG and capnography signals were visually inspected to identify low-quality measurements, based on assessment of the temporal sequence.
Baseline characteristics are expressed as mean (SD) or, in case of nonnormally distributed values, as median (IQR) values. Agreement between the PPG wristband and reference monitor measurements on a second-to-second basis was visualized using Bland-Altman plots [22 (link)]. As multiple observations from the same patients were analyzed, the bias and limits of agreement were calculated using the method for repeated measures of Zou et al [23 (link)]. Additionally, the 95% CIs around the limits of agreement were assessed using MOVER [23 (link)].
According to the American National Standards Institute consensus standard, the error for HR measurements should be ≤10% or ≤5 bpm. In this analysis, an error of ≤5 bpm for HR and ≤3 rpm for RR was considered clinically acceptable. Additionally, Clarke error grid analysis was performed to quantify the implications of the difference between the vitals measured by the reference monitor and the PPG wristband. Clarke error grid analysis was originally developed for blood glucose measurements, and the boundaries of the different zones were adapted on the basis of the Modified Early Warning Score protocol used in our hospital [8 (link),17 (link),24 (link),25 (link)].
van der Stam J.A., Mestrom E.H., Scheerhoorn J., Jacobs F.E., Nienhuijs S., Boer A.K., van Riel N.A., de Morree H.M., Bonomi A.G., Scharnhorst V, & Bouwman R.A. (2023). The Accuracy of Wrist-Worn Photoplethysmogram–Measured Heart and Respiratory Rates in Abdominal Surgery Patients: Observational Prospective Clinical Validation Study. JMIR Perioperative Medicine, 6, e40474.
Publication 2023
Base Sequence Blood Glucose Capnography Cardiac Arrhythmia Early Warning Score
4
Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir for COVID-19 Management
The treatment group received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir every 12 hours for five days in addition to symptomatic supportive care. The baseline characteristics of patients, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), underlying comorbidities, COVID-19 vaccination status, time of symptom onset, and confirmed date of COVID-19, were recorded. We defined ‘fully vaccinated’ as a condition of the three doses (two doses in the case of the Janssen vaccine) or status within two weeks after the second dose (first dose in the case of the Janssen vaccine). Clinical severity was measured using the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2).12 (link) The worst value on Day 1 was used to estimate the scoring variables. Clinical symptoms for effectiveness were assessed every day during hospitalization and 28 days after beginning nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. On Day 28, patients were contacted via telephone and interviewed regarding their clinical symptoms and the need for additional hospital visits after discharge. Clinical symptoms were categorized as respiratory and non-respiratory symptoms. If the patient was asymptomatic during the study period, the first day when all symptoms were resolved was collected. Clinical signs, such as noninvasive oxygen saturation and body temperature, were checked daily during the isolation period. Fever was defined as a body temperature of 37.8°C or higher. Clinical outcomes, including oxygen requirement and mortality, were also observed. Prescriptions of other medications for COVID-19, such as monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, corticosteroids, and antibiotic agents, were recorded if relevant.
Lee E., Park S., Choi J.P., Kim M.K., Yang E., Ham S.Y., Lee S., Lee B., Yang J.S., Park B.K., Kim D.S., Lee S.Y., Lee J.Y., Jang H.C., Jeon J, & Park S.W. (2023). Short-Term Effectiveness of Oral Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant and Culture-Positive Viral Shedding. Journal of Korean Medical Science, 38(8), e59.
Publication 2023
Adrenal Cortex Hormones Antibiotics Body Temperature COVID 19 Early Warning Score Fever Hospitalization Index, Body Mass isolation Monoclonal Antibodies nirmatrelvir and ritonavir drug combination Oxygen Oxygen Saturation Patient Discharge Patients remdesivir Respiratory Rate Signs and Symptoms, Respiratory Vaccination Vaccines
5
Comparing Clinical Scoring Systems for Sepsis
We analyzed the following published clinical scoring systems for the clinical outcome and mortality risk, including the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) score, Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Rapid Acute Physiology Score (RAPS), and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA).
Chen Y.H., Hsieh M.S., Hu S.Y., Huang S.C., Tsai C.A, & Tsai Y.C. (2023). Scoring Systems to Evaluate the Mortality Risk of Patients with Emphysematous Cystitis: A Retrospective Observational Study. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 13(2), 318.
Publication 2023
Early Warning Score physiology Septicemia

Top products related to «Early Warning Score»

1
Rapidpoint by Siemens
Sourced in Germany
The RAPIDPoint is a compact, versatile laboratory equipment designed for efficient blood gas and electrolyte analysis. It provides accurate and reliable measurements of critical parameters such as pH, pO2, pCO2, and electrolyte levels in patient samples.
2
Stata v 12 by StataCorp
Sourced in United States, United Kingdom, Denmark
Stata V.12 is a software package designed for statistical analysis, data management, and graphics. It provides a comprehensive set of tools for researchers, analysts, and professionals in various fields. The core function of Stata V.12 is to facilitate the analysis of data, including the ability to perform a wide range of statistical tests, create graphs and visualizations, and manage complex datasets.
3
Spss version 18 by IBM
Sourced in United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Thailand, China, Italy, Germany
SPSS version 18.0 is a statistical software package developed by IBM. It provides data management, analysis, and reporting capabilities. The core function of SPSS is to assist in the analysis of data and presentation of results.
4
Enlite glucose sensor by Medtronic
Sourced in United States, Switzerland
The Enlite Glucose Sensor is a lab equipment product designed for continuous glucose monitoring. It measures glucose levels in the interstitial fluid and provides real-time data to help manage diabetes.
5
R version 4 by R Project for Statistical Computing
Sourced in United States, Austria, Japan, Belgium, New Zealand, Denmark
R version 4.0.2 is the latest stable release of the R Project for Statistical Computing, a free and open-source software environment for statistical computing and graphics. R version 4.0.2 provides a wide range of statistical and graphical techniques, and is widely used in various fields for data analysis, visualization, and modeling.
6
Stata statistical software release 13 by StataCorp
Sourced in United States
Stata Statistical Software: Release 13 is a comprehensive software package designed for data analysis, statistical modeling, and graphics. It provides a wide range of statistical tools and functions to support researchers, analysts, and professionals in various fields.
7
Cobas 8000 system by Roche
Sourced in Switzerland, Germany, United States
The Cobas 8000 system is a modular, automated in vitro diagnostic platform designed for high-throughput clinical laboratory testing. It provides integrated sample handling, analytical, and reporting capabilities for a wide range of clinical chemistry and immunoassay tests. The system is designed to enhance efficiency, productivity, and reliability in clinical laboratory operations.
8
Spss version 22 by IBM
Sourced in United States, Japan, United Kingdom, Austria, Germany, Czechia, Belgium, Denmark, Canada
SPSS version 22.0 is a statistical software package developed by IBM. It is designed to analyze and manipulate data for research and business purposes. The software provides a range of statistical analysis tools and techniques, including regression analysis, hypothesis testing, and data visualization.
9
Spss version 26 by IBM
Sourced in United States, Japan, United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, Canada, Belgium, Spain
SPSS version 26 is a statistical software package developed by IBM. It is designed to perform advanced statistical analysis, data management, and data visualization tasks. The software provides a wide range of analytical tools and techniques to help users understand and draw insights from their data.

More about "Early Warning Score"

Early Warning Score (EWS) is a critical clinical tool used to quickly identify and respond to signs of patient deterioration.
It assigns points based on measured vital signs, such as blood pressure, heart rate, and respiratory rate, to help healthcare providers detect patients at risk of adverse outcomes.
By recognizing potential issues early, EWS optimization can enhance research accuracy and workflow for researchers studying patient monitoring and treatment protocols.
This scoring system is often used in conjunction with other medical technologies and software, including RAPIDPoint for blood gas analysis, Stata for statistical modeling, SPSS for data analysis, Enlite Glucose Sensor for continuous glucose monitoring, and R for programming and data visualization.
Healthcare providers can leverage these tools to collect, analyze, and interpret patient data more effectively.
EWS helps improve patient outcomes by enabling early intervention and preventive care.
Researchers can utilize EWS to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of their studies, leveraging the scoring system to identify high-risk patients and optimize treatment protocols.
By incorporating EWS into their workflows, researchers can gain valuable insights and improve the overall quality of their research, ultimately leading to better patient care and outcomes.