Early warning systems in obstetrics: A systematic literature review.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
27
12
2018
accepted:
20
05
2019
entrez:
1
6
2019
pubmed:
1
6
2019
medline:
29
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Several versions of Early Warning Systems (EWS) are used in obstetrics to detect and treat early clinical deterioration to avert morbidity and mortality. EWS can potentially be useful to improve the quality of care and reduce the risk of maternal mortality in resource-limited settings. We conducted a systematic literature review of published obstetric early warning systems, define their predictive accuracy for morbidity and mortality, and their effectiveness in triggering corrective actions and improving health outcomes. We systematically searched for primary research articles on obstetric EWS published in peer-reviewed journals between January 1997 and March 2018 in Medline, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Science Direct, and Science Citation Index. We also searched reference lists of relevant articles and websites of professional societies. We included studies that assessed the predictive accuracy of EWS to detect clinical deterioration, or/and their effectiveness in improving clinical outcomes in obstetric inpatients. We excluded studies with a paediatric or non-obstetric adult population. Cross-sectional and qualitative studies were also excluded. We performed a narrative synthesis since the outcomes reported were heterogeneous. A total of 381 papers were identified, 17 of which met the inclusion criteria. Eleven of the included studies evaluated the predictive accuracy of EWS for obstetric morbidity and mortality, 5 studies assessed the effectiveness of EWS in improving clinical outcomes, while one study addressed both. Sixteen published EWS versions were reviewed, 14 of which included five basic clinical observations (pulse rate, respiratory rate, temperature, blood pressure, and consciousness level). The obstetric EWS identified had very high median (inter-quartile range) sensitivity-89% (72% to 97%) and specificity-85% (67% to 98%) but low median (inter-quartile range) positive predictive values-41% (25% to 74%) for predicting morbidity or ICU admission. Obstetric EWS had a very high accuracy in predicting death (AUROC >0.80) among critically ill obstetric patients. Obstetric EWS improves the frequency of routine vital sign observation, reduces the interval between the recording of specifically defined abnormal clinical observations and corrective clinical actions, and can potentially reduce the severity of obstetric morbidity. Obstetric EWS are effective in predicting severe morbidity (in general obstetric population) and mortality (in critically ill obstetric patients). EWS can contribute to improved quality of care, prevent progressive obstetric morbidity and improve health outcomes. There is limited evidence of the effectiveness of EWS in reducing maternal death across all settings. Clinical parameters in most obstetric EWS versions are routinely collected in resource-limited settings, therefore implementing EWS may be feasible in such settings.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31150513
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217864
pii: PONE-D-18-36837
pmc: PMC6544303
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0217864Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Br J Anaesth. 2011 Aug;107(2):127-32
pubmed: 21757549
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2007 Dec;28(12):1323-7
pubmed: 17994510
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Dec;207:11-17
pubmed: 27792988
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Lancet. 2011 Jan 15;377(9761):219-27
pubmed: 21185591
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 Feb;136(2):175-179
pubmed: 28099733
BMJ Open. 2017 Jun 30;7(6):e013903
pubmed: 28667198
J Pak Med Assoc. 2017 Jan;67(1):111-115
pubmed: 28065966
PLoS Med. 2014 Jan;11(1):e1001589
pubmed: 24465185
Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2015 Jun;42(2):289-98
pubmed: 26002167
PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e59830
pubmed: 23555796
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Apr;214(4):527.e1-527.e6
pubmed: 26924745
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016 Apr;133(1):121-2
pubmed: 26873121
Resuscitation. 2013 Apr;84(4):465-70
pubmed: 23295778
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Apr;212(4):536.e1-8
pubmed: 25446705
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015 May;129(2):142-5
pubmed: 25670063
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016 Mar;132(3):337-41
pubmed: 26797195
Anaesthesia. 2012 Jan;67(1):12-8
pubmed: 22066604
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017 Sep;39(9):728-733.e3
pubmed: 28566256
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Nov;213(5):748
pubmed: 26149825
Anaesthesia. 2014 Jul;69(7):687-92
pubmed: 24801160
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Dec;203(6):573.e1-5
pubmed: 20833382
Pregnancy Hypertens. 2018 Apr;12:183-188
pubmed: 29175171
Anaesthesia. 2013 Apr;68(4):354-67
pubmed: 23488833
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Apr;54(2):152-5
pubmed: 24359235
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jan;216(1):58.e1-58.e8
pubmed: 27751799
Resuscitation. 2014 May;85(5):587-94
pubmed: 24467882
Lancet. 2016 Jan 30;387(10017):462-74
pubmed: 26584737