Reply to “Prevalence and Mortality of Patients with Palliative Needs in an Acute Respiratory Setting”

Huguet, Eva Tabernero; Antia, Borja Ortiz De Urbina; Quero, Beatriz Gonzalez; Ecenarro, Patricia Sobradillo; Pascual, Milagros Iriberri

doi:10.1016/j.arbr.2021.09.015

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In total 59 studies were included in the meta-analysis. 18,21 –78 The flowchart of the included studies can be found in Figure 1. Four studies consisted of multiple cohorts: three studies consisted of a derivation and a validation cohort 22,38,52 and one study consisted of two different patient subgroups.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The utility of the surprise question: A useful tool for identifying patients nearing the last phase of life? A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The surprise question is widely used to identify patients nearing the last phase of life. Potential differences in accuracy between timeframe, patient subgroups and type of healthcare professionals answering the surprise question have been suggested. Recent studies might give new insights. Aim: To determine the accuracy of the surprise question in predicting death, differentiating by timeframe, patient subgroup and by type of healthcare professional. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: Electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science and CINAHL were searched from inception till 22nd January 2021. Studies were eligible if they used the surprise question prospectively and assessed mortality. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and c-statistic were calculated. Results: Fifty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, including 88.268 assessments. The meta-analysis resulted in an estimated sensitivity of 71.4% (95% CI [66.3–76.4]) and specificity of 74.0% (95% CI [69.3–78.6]). The negative predictive value varied from 98.0% (95% CI [97.7–98.3]) to 88.6% (95% CI [87.1–90.0]) with a mortality rate of 5% and 25% respectively. The positive predictive value varied from 12.6% (95% CI [11.0–14.2]) with a mortality rate of 5% to 47.8% (95% CI [44.2–51.3]) with a mortality rate of 25%. Seven studies provided detailed information on different healthcare professionals answering the surprise question. Conclusion: We found overall reasonable test characteristics for the surprise question. Additionally, this study showed notable differences in performance within patient subgroups. However, we did not find an indication of notable differences between timeframe and healthcare professionals.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…18 studies were included after the authors provided additional data. 22,23,36,38,39,42,43,46,47,52,53,55,59–61,70,72,75 Of the remaining 17 articles, two studies were excluded since they did not use the surprise question to predict death. 79,80 Eight studies were excluded since the author was not able to not provide extra data.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%