Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

The predictive performance and impact of pediatric early warning systems in hospitalized pediatric oncology patients-A systematic review

  • Marijn Soeteman
  • , Caroline W Lekkerkerker
  • , Teus H Kappen
  • , Wim J Tissing
  • , Edward E Nieuwenhuis
  • , Roelie M Wösten-van Asperen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Pediatric early warning systems (PEWS) arewidely used to identify clinically deteriorating patients. Hospitalized pediatric oncology patients are particularly prone to clinical deterioration. We assessed the PEWS performance to predict early clinical deterioration and the effect of PEWS implementation on patient outcomes in pediatric oncology patients. PubMED, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched from inception up to March 2020. Quality assessment was performed using the Prediction model study Risk-Of-Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool. Nine studies were included. Due to heterogeneity of study designs, outcome measures, and diversity of PEWS, it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis. Although the studies reported high sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of PEWS detecting inpatient deterioration, overall risk of bias of the studies was high. This review highlights limited evidence on the predictive performance of PEWS for clinical deterioration and the effect of PEWS implementation.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere29636
Pages (from-to)e29636
JournalPediatric blood & cancer
Volume69
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2022

Keywords

  • Child
  • Clinical Deterioration
  • Humans
  • Inpatients
  • Medical Oncology
  • Neoplasms/therapy
  • ROC Curve
  • Retrospective Studies

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The predictive performance and impact of pediatric early warning systems in hospitalized pediatric oncology patients-A systematic review'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this