63
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Rapid response systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article
      , ,
      Critical Care
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Although rapid response system teams have been widely adopted by many health systems, their effectiveness in reducing hospital mortality is uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the impact of rapid response teams on hospital mortality and cardiopulmonary arrest.

          Method

          We conducted a systematic review of studies published from January 1, 1990, through 31 December 2013, using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and the Cochrane Library. We included studies that reported data on the primary outcomes of ICU and in-hospital mortality or cardiopulmonary arrests.

          Results

          Twenty-nine eligible studies were identified. The studies were analysed in groups based on adult and paediatric trials that were further sub-grouped on methodological design. There were 5 studies that were considered either cluster randomized control trial, controlled before after or interrupted time series. The remaining studies were before and after studies without a contemporaneous control. The implementation of RRS has been associated with an overall reduction in hospital mortality in both the adult (RR 0.87, 95 % CI 0.81–0.95, p<0.001) and paediatric (RR=0.82 95 % CI 0.76–0.89) in-patient population. There was substantial heterogeneity in both populations. The rapid response system team was also associated with a reduction in cardiopulmonary arrests in adults (RR 0.65, 95 % CI 0.61–0.70, p<0.001) and paediatric (RR=0.64 95 % CI 0.55–0.74) patients.

          Conclusion

          Rapid response systems were associated with a reduction in hospital mortality and cardiopulmonary arrest. Meta-regression did not identify the presence of a physician in the rapid response system to be significantly associated with a mortality reduction.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0973-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references64

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

              Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ritesh.maharaj@kcl.ac.uk
                ivanraffaele@nhs.net
                Julia.wendon@kcl.ac.uk
                Journal
                Crit Care
                Critical Care
                BioMed Central (London )
                1364-8535
                1466-609X
                12 June 2015
                12 June 2015
                2015
                : 19
                : 1
                : 254
                Affiliations
                [ ]Kings College London, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RW UK
                [ ]Department of Critical Care Medicine, King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RW UK
                [ ]Department of Critical Care Medicine, Kings College London, Ground Floor, Cheyne Wing, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 9RS UK
                Article
                973
                10.1186/s13054-015-0973-y
                4489005
                26070457
                6fd633e4-1b00-4e7c-8ffd-6cd8938ffcdf
                © Maharaj et al. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 11 March 2015
                : 4 June 2015
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article