↓ Skip to main content

Rapid response systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
77 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
417 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
341 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rapid response systems: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0973-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ritesh Maharaj, Ivan Raffaele, Julia Wendon

Abstract

Although rapid response system teams have been widely adopted by many health systems, their effectiveness in reducing hospital mortality is uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis to examine the impact of rapid response teams on hospital mortality and cardiopulmonary arrest. We conducted a systematic review of studies published from January 1, 1990, through 31 December 2013, using PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and the Cochrane Library. We included studies that reported data on the primary outcomes of ICU and in-hospital mortality or cardiopulmonary arrests. Twenty-nine eligible studies were identified. The studies were analysed in groups based on adult and paediatric trials that were further sub-grouped on methodological design. There were 5 studies that were considered either cluster randomized control trial, controlled before after or interrupted time series. The remaining studies were before and after studies without a contemporaneous control. The implementation of RRS has been associated with an overall reduction in hospital mortality in both the adult (RR 0.87, 95 %CI 0.81-0.95, p<0.001) and paediatric (RR=0.82 95 %CI 0.76- 0.89) in-patient population. There was substantial heterogeneity in both populations. The rapid response system team was also associated with a reduction in cardiopulmonary arrests in adults (RR 0.65, 95 %CI 0.61-0.70, p<0.001) and paediatric (RR=0.64 95 %CI 0.55- 0.74) patients. Rapid response systems were associated with a reduction in hospital mortality and cardiopulmonary arrest. Meta-regression did not identify the presence of a physician in the rapid response system to be significantly associated with a mortality reduction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 77 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 341 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 335 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 48 14%
Student > Master 42 12%
Researcher 33 10%
Student > Bachelor 30 9%
Student > Postgraduate 24 7%
Other 78 23%
Unknown 86 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 153 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 13%
Engineering 7 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 1%
Other 23 7%
Unknown 102 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 59. 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 05 December 2021.
All research outputs
#740,181
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#516
of 6,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,134
of 397,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#28
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,614 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
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 397,649 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.