English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

This study assesses the performance of National Early Warning Score (NEWS), Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS), and Rapid Acute Physiology Score (RAPS) in predicting emphysematous pyelonephritis (EPN) patients’ need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission. A retrospective analysis was conducted at four training and research hospitals’ emergency departments (EDs) on all EPN adult patients from January 2007 to August 2017. Data extracted were used to calculate raw scores for five physiologic scoring systems. Mann-Whitney U tests and χ 2  tests were done for numerical and categorical variables respectively to examine differences between characteristics of ICU and non-ICU patient populations. Predictability of ICU admission was evaluated with AUROC analysis. ICU patients had lower GCS scores, SpO2, platelet counts, and estimated glomerular filtration rate; and higher bands, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, and incidences of septic shock and nephrectomy. NEWS performed best, with 73.85% accuracy at optimal cut-off of 3. In this multicentre ED EPN series, we recommend using NEWS in early identification of critical EPN patients and advance planning for ICU admission. This would reduce delays in ICU transfer and ultimately improve patient outcomes.

scientific reports

Predicting need for intensive care unit admission in adult emphysematous pyelonephritis patients at emergency departments: comparison of five scoring systems