Skip to main content
. 2020 Dec;157:176–184. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.10.037

Table 3.

A comparison of actual patient outcomes using four scoring systems. Numbers of cases for “events + alarms from the system”, “non-events + no alarm”, “events + no alarm” and “non-events + alarm” are reported for the unseen test data (total number of observations = 36,769 across 4 months in 4 centres), of which 340 were adverse events and 36,429 were non-events. Percentages in the last two columns were computed as the % of total no-alarms followed by SAEs and that of total alarms followed by SAEs, respectively. Youden’s thresholds (cut-off values) for LogEWS2, DyniEWS.simplified and DyniEWS that maximised the sum of sensitivity and specificity were derived from internal validation.

Methods Event & alarm Non-event & no-alarm Event & no-alarm Non-event & alarm Total alarm Total no-alarm
N (% 340 expected cases) N (% 36,429 expected cases) N (% total no-alarms) N (% total alarms) N N
NEWS (cut-off = 3) 242(71) 22,827(63) 98(0.4) 13,602(98) 13,844 22,925
NEWS (cut-off = 5) 140(41) 32,644(90) 200(0.6) 3785(96) 3925 32,844
NEWS (cut-off = 7) 63(19) 35,624(98) 277(0.8) 805(93) 868 35,901
LogEWS2 (cut-off = 1.01%) 207(61) 27,648(76) 133(0.5) 8781(98) 8918 27,851
DyniNEWS.simplified (cut-off = 1.14%) 211(62) 29,422(81) 129(0.4) 7007(97) 7218 29,551
DyniEWS (cut-off = 0.97%) 233(69) 28,127(77) 107(0.4) 8302(97) 8535 28,234