Table 1.
Number and proportion of papers according to the aim of study and number of patients analysed
| Number of patients analysed | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aim of study | Number (%) of papers with this aima | < 100 | 100–1000 | 1000–10,000 | 10,000–100,000 | 100,000–1,000,000 | Number not reported |
| Predicting complications | 79 (30.6%) | 23 (29.1%) | 26 (32.9%) | 17 (21.5%) | 8 (10.1%) | 3 (3.8%) | 2 (2.5%) |
| Predicting mortality | 70 (27.1%) | 11 (15.7%) | 19 (27.1%) | 19 (27.1%) | 18 (25.7%) | 1 (1.4%) | 2 (2.9%) |
| Improving prognostic models/risk scoring system | 43 (16.7%) | 8 (18.6%) | 16 (37.2%) | 8 (18.6%) | 8 (18.6%) | 2 (4.7%) | 1 (2.3%) |
| Classifying sub-populations | 29 (11.2%) | 11 (37.9%) | 8 (27.6%) | 6 (20.7%) | 2 (6.9%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (6.9%) |
| Alarm reduction | 21 (8.14%) | 9 (42.9%) | 5 (23.8%) | 7 (33.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Predicting length of stay | 18 (6.98%) | 3 (16.7%) | 7 (38.9%) | 5 (27.8%) | 3 (16.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Predicting health improvement | 17 (6.59%) | 5 (29.4%) | 10 (58.8%) | 2 (11.8%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Determining physiological thresholds | 16 (6.20%) | 10 (62.5%) | 4 (25.0%) | 1 (6.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (6.2%) |
| Improving upon previous methods | 5 (1.94%) | 2 (40.0%) | 1 (20.0%) | 1 (20.0%) | 1 (20.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Detecting spurious recorded values | 3 (1.16%) | 1 (33.3%) | 2 (66.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) |
| Total (accounting for duplicates) | 258 | 72 (27.9%) | 84 (32.6%) | 55 (21.3%) | 35 (13.6%) | 6 (2.33%) | 6 (2.33%) |
aWhere papers had more than one aim, all aims were recorded, so percentages may total more than 100