戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 utcomes following implementation of National Early Warning Score.
2 age score, an electronic health record-based early warning score.
3 intensive care unit transfer to the Modified Early Warning Score.
4 o improve patient outcomes than the modified early warning score.
5 tensive care unit transfer than the Modified Early Warning Score.
6  of 53.4% compared to 47.7% for the Modified Early Warning Score.
7 t deterioration were superior to traditional early warning scores.
8 n the accuracy of sepsis screening tools and early warning scores.
9 ht to compare qSOFA with other commonly used early warning scores.
10 cquisition of vital signs and calculation of early warning scores.
11 Score (0.034; 95% CI, 0.032-0.035), Modified Early Warning Score (0.028; 95% CI, 0.027- 0.03), and qu
12 I 0.041 to 0.045), and outperformed National Early Warning Score (0.034; 95% CI, 0.032-0.035), Modifi
13 ver-operating characteristics curve than the Early Warning Score (0.86).
14 he Modified Early Warning Score and National Early Warning Score (0.87 vs 0.74 vs 0.71).
15 ning Score (2.0%; 95% CI, 2.0-2.0), Modified Early Warning Score (1.5%; 95% CI, 1.5-1.5), and quick S
16  with two clinical scoring systems, National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) and International Severe A
17 We compare model performance to the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) and yield up to a 0.366 in
18  of arterial hypertension, obesity, National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) score at admission, and pn
19                               EWSs (National Early Warning Score 2 [NEWS2], modified NEWS score witho
20 performed better than other scores (National Early Warning Score 2, International Severe Acute Respir
21 ssion model (3.1%; 95% CI 3.1-3.2), National Early Warning Score (2.0%; 95% CI, 2.0-2.0), Modified Ea
22  index (0.82 vs 0.93; p<0.001), and Modified Early Warning Score (2.6 vs 3.3; p<0.001) and higher pul
23 e compared to each other and to the Modified Early Warning score, a commonly cited early warning scor
24 rdiac arrest and compared it to the Modified Early Warning Score, a commonly cited rapid response tea
25 5,322 patients (42,402 patients pre-National Early Warning Score and 42,920 patients post-National Ea
26                      We applied the National Early Warning Score and 44 sets of medical emergency tea
27 ur model was more accurate than the VitalPAC Early Warning Score and could be implemented in the elec
28 igher area under the curve than the Modified Early Warning Score and National Early Warning Score (0.
29 as significantly more accurate than Modified Early Warning Score and National Early Warning Score ver
30                                 The Modified Early Warning Score and Situation-Background-Assessment-
31 , 0.77 vs 0.73; p < 0.001) than the VitalPAC Early Warning Score, and accuracy was similar with cross
32   The National Early Warning Score, Modified Early Warning Score, and quick Sepsis-related Organ Fail
33 syndrome criteria, the National and Modified Early Warning Score, and the electronic Cardiac Arrest R
34                                              Early warning scores are known to have good predictive v
35                                Commonly used early warning scores are more accurate than the qSOFA sc
36                                              Early warning scores are predictive of severe adverse ev
37                                              Early warning scores are widely used to identify deterio
38 s and composite scores, such as the Modified Early Warning Score, are used to identify high-risk ward
39 rly patients than elderly patients (Modified Early Warning Score area under the receiver operating ch
40 ing characteristic curve, 0.66) and Modified Early Warning Score (area under the receiver operating c
41 y predicted cardiac arrest than the Modified Early Warning Score (area under the receiver operating c
42  care unit transfer better than the Modified Early Warning Score (area under the receiver operating c
43 he Epic Deterioration Index and the National Early Warning Score at both institutions.
44 ingle-center study we showed that adding the Early Warning Score based on vital signs to the DENWIS-i
45 cale, Modified Early Warning Score, National Early Warning Score, Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage, Rapid A
46          We developed and validated COVID-19 Early Warning Score (COEWS), an EWS that is automaticall
47 , providing they had a minimum of 6 hours of Early Warning Score data available following the time of
48         Implementation of a machine learning early warning score-driven protocol was associated with
49 s were above and to the left of the National Early Warning Score efficiency curve, indicating higher
50                       We examined whether an early warning score (EWS) could predict inpatient compli
51       Despite the widespread introduction of early warning score (EWS) systems and electronic health
52                                              Early warning scores (EWSs) are designed for in-hospital
53                                              Early Warning Scores (EWSs) have a great potential to as
54 asily implementable and clinically effective Early Warning Scores (EWSs) that can predict the risk of
55 assessment during admission, compared to the Early Warning Scores (EWSs) using the area under the cur
56 l had a higher sensitivity than the VitalPAC Early Warning Score for cardiac arrest patients (65% vs
57 aracteristic curve (95% CI) for the National Early Warning Score for the combined outcome (i.e., deat
58                                Commonly used early warning scores for clinical decompensation, along
59                     Assess the accuracy of 3 early warning scores for predicting severe adverse event
60  to validate the parameters used in this and early warning scores for the obstetric population.
61 392, 95% CI [1.017-1.905]) compared with the Early Warning Score-guided proactive rapid response team
62 ed ICU transfers occurring during the use of Early Warning Score-guided proactive rapid response team
63 esponse team models (rapid response team vs. Early Warning Score-guided proactive rapid response team
64 ur academic and community hospital, National Early Warning Score had poor performance characteristics
65                                  Research on early warning scores has focused on patients in short-te
66                                              Early warning scores have been developed to alert clinic
67                                              Early warning scores have been developed to detect inpat
68                                     Existing early warning scores have comparatively good discriminat
69 lop and externally validate an International Early Warning Score (IEWS) based on a recalibrated Natio
70                        As a result, National Early Warning Score implementation had no appreciable im
71 t to determine the effectiveness of National Early Warning Score implementation on predicting and pre
72 ning Score and 42,920 patients post-National Early Warning Score implementation), the primary outcome
73 nsfer or death did not change after National Early Warning Score implementation, with adjusted hazard
74 inclusive of a medical emergency team and an early warning score in February 2010.
75               Implementation of the National Early Warning Score in the National Health Service (NHS)
76                     However, the accuracy of early warning scores in long-term acute care hospitals i
77 ied from synthesis of the data: Strengths of early warning scores included their prediction value, in
78 ysis, subsequently inserting 'worry' and the Early Warning Score into the model.
79 ing characteristic curve, 0.65) and Modified Early Warning Score (median area under the receiver oper
80 ristic curve 0.67), and highest for National Early Warning Score (median area under the receiver oper
81 eumonia (98% vs 60%, <.001), higher Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and CURB-65 (confusion, blood
82                        Although the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) is increasingly being used in
83 e final model was compared with the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) using the area under the rece
84 lammatory Response Syndrome (SIRS), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), and the National Early Warni
85                                     Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), National Early Warning Score
86 othman Index (RI), eCARTv5 (eCART), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), National Early Warning Score
87               The accuracies of the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), National Early Warning Score
88 t of introducing an automated multiparameter early warning score (MEWS)-based early warning system wi
89 ting deceleration capacity into the modified early warning score model led to a highly significant in
90                                 The modified early warning score model yielded an area under the rece
91                                 The National Early Warning Score, Modified Early Warning Score, and q
92 ding Patient Acuity Category Scale, Modified Early Warning Score, National Early Warning Score, Cardi
93                                 The National Early Warning Score (NEWS) has been shown to effectively
94 gan Failure Assessment (qSOFA), and National Early Warning Score (NEWS) in relation to short-term mor
95 core (IEWS) based on a recalibrated National Early warning Score (NEWS) model including age and sex a
96                     Patients with a National Early Warning Score (NEWS) of 3 or above and suspected o
97 Early Warning Score (MEWS), and the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) were compared for predicting
98 odified Early Warning Score (MEWS), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), and NEWS2 scores.
99 odified Early Warning Score (MEWS), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), and the electronic cardiac a
100 odified Early Warning Score (MEWS), National Early Warning Score (NEWS), quick Sequential Organ Failu
101 ith existing clinical sepsis tools: National Early Warning Score (NEWS), quick Sequential Organ Failu
102 enation efficiency (SpO2/FiO2), and National Early Warning Score (NEWS).
103  the use of routine blood tests and national early warning scores (NEWS) reported within +/-24 hours
104             Eligible patients had a National Early Warning score of 2 points or greater at the time o
105 -confirmed influenza A infection, a National Early Warning score of 3 or greater, and onset of illnes
106                                   A National Early Warning Score of greater than or equal to 7 had an
107 lower oxygen saturations and higher National Early Warning Scores on baseline.
108 87 and 0.91, respectively) compared with the Early Warning Score only based on vital signs.
109 or clinical escalation better than a generic early warning score or a single estimation of risk calcu
110     Previous studies have looked at National Early Warning Score performance in predicting in-hospita
111                                              Early warning scores provide the right language and envi
112 r all outcomes, the position of the National Early Warning Score receiver-operating characteristic cu
113                                 The National Early Warning Score's performance was assessed using the
114 llow-up, 120 (25%) of 484 reached a National Early Warning Score (second version; NEWS2) of 7 or high
115           NEWS, a non-AI, publicly available early warning score, significantly outperformed EDI.
116 vidence that the prediction value of generic early warning scores suffers in comparison to specialty-
117                        The implementation of early warning scoring systems and medical emergency team
118                                              Early warning scoring systems are widely used in clinica
119                                     Existing early warning scoring systems had good discriminatory po
120 curacy of individual variables, the Modified Early Warning Score, the National Early Warning Score ve
121 , 2015, during preimplementation of National Early Warning Score to August 1, 2015, to July 31, 2016,
122                       Adding 'worry' and the Early Warning Score to the DENWIS-model resulted in high
123 , but knowledge regarding the application of early warning scores to postoperative inpatients is limi
124 rediction model was compared to the VitalPAC Early Warning Score using the area under the receiver op
125 dified Early Warning score, a commonly cited early warning score, using the area under the receiver o
126                                   A National Early Warning Score value of 7 had sensitivity/specifici
127 ency team systems are compared to a National Early Warning Score value of greater than or equal to 7,
128 tems have a higher sensitivity than National Early Warning Score values of greater than or equal to 7
129 as significantly more accurate than National Early Warning Score version 2 (area under the receiver o
130 an Modified Early Warning Score and National Early Warning Score version 2 for predicting acute hospi
131 e Modified Early Warning Score, the National Early Warning Score version 2, and our previously develo
132                                 The modified early warning score was assessed from respiratory rate,
133 st 1, 2015, to July 31, 2016, after National Early Warning Score was implemented.
134 istic curve for vital signs and the Modified Early Warning Score were also compared.
135  curves for all vital signs and the Modified Early Warning Score were higher for nonelderly patients
136                                              Early warning scores were developed to identify high-ris
137 ymphocyte ratios (PLRs), and ANDC scores (an early warning score), were analyzed.
138 t the qSOFA score should not replace general early warning scores when risk-stratifying patients with
139                          Retraining National Early Warning Score with newly generated hospital-specif
140                   Implementation of National Early Warning Score within the electronic health record

 
Page Top