↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the effect of delayed activation of rapid response teams on patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Evaluating the effect of delayed activation of rapid response teams on patient outcomes: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0705-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael K. Xu, Kathleen G. Dobson, Lehana Thabane, Alison E. Fox-Robichaud

Abstract

Rapid response teams have been widely adopted across the world. Although evidence for their efficacy is not clear, they remain a popular means to detect and react to patient deterioration. This may in part be due to there being no standardized approach to their usage or implementation. A key component of their ability to be effective is the speed of response. The objective of this review is to evaluate the effect of delayed response by rapid response teams on hospital mortality (primary), cardiac arrest, and intensive care transfer rates (secondary). This review will include randomized and non-randomized studies which examined the effect of delayed response times by rapid response teams on patient mortality, cardiac arrest, and intensive care unit admission rates. This review will include studies of adult patients who have experienced a rapid response team consultation. The search strategy will utilize a combination of keywords and MeSH terms. MEDLINE and Embase will be searched, as well as examining gray literature. Two reviewers will independently screen retrieved citations to determine if they meet inclusion criteria. Studies will be selected that provide information about the impact of response time on patient outcomes. Comparisons will be made between consults that arrive in a timely manner and consults that are delayed. Quality assessment of randomized studies will be conducted in accordance with guidelines from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Quality assessment of non-randomized studies will be based on the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. Results of the review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. This systematic review will identify and synthesize evidence around the impact of delayed response by rapid response teams on patient mortality, cardiac arrest, and intensive care transfer rates. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42017071842 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 7 30%
Student > Master 6 26%
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 8 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Computer Science 3 13%
Environmental Science 1 4%
Other 3 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,016,737
of 12,639,455 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#745
of 1,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,656
of 274,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#20
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,639,455 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,046 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.