Improving early warning scores – more data, better validation, the same response

Abstract

Improving early warning scoresmore data, better validation, the same responseWe thank Oglesby et al. for their interesting editorial [1] accompanying our recent paper [2]. We value their interpretation that a single standardised early warning score (EWS) may not be applicable to all types of patients and are grateful for their qualified support of the concept of future population-specific EWS. We are also in agreement that evidence-based models are preferable to consensus-based scores and that external validation is imperative for all EWS.

Improving early warning scores – more data, better validation, the same response: a reply

“…We thank Mackay et al. for their comments on our editorial , which accompanied the article by Chiu et al. and agree with the definition of external validation that they provide.…”

“…

Improving early warning scoresmore data, better validation, the same response: a replyWe thank Mackay et al [1] for their comments on our editorial [2], which accompanied the article by Chiu et al [3] and agree with the definition of external validation that they provide. In broad terms, internal validation is concerned

…”

“…

Improving early warning scoresmore data, better validation, the same response: a replyWe thank Mackay et al [1] for their comments on our editorial [2], which accompanied the article by Chiu et al [3] and agree with the definition of external validation that they provide. In broad terms, internal validation is concerned with reproducibility of a prediction model, whereas external validation is concerned with the transportability of model predictions to other settings and populations.

…”

Early warning scores to assess risk before emergency laparotomy: a reply

“…We thank Dr Mackay [1] for his interest in our study [2]. He is indeed correct that the National Early Warning Score (NEWS) was much better at predicting 24‐h mortality in the Kovacs et al.…”