Why the study?
Does the ROSE risk score predict mortality and major adverse events at 7 and 30 days in adult patients with syncope admitted to the emergency department?
Does the ROSE risk score predict mortality and major adverse events at 7 and 30 days in adult patients with syncope admitted to the emergency department?
The ROSE score demonstrated low sensitivity but high negative predictive value (83%) for predicting mortality or serious outcomes at 7 and 30 days in syncope patients, suggesting utility primarily in identifying low-risk individuals.
ROSE score's poor discrimination and low specificity caution against ED use for syncope risk stratification; leaves open its comparative value in larger validation cohorts.
Introduction: The use of the ROSE risk score after syncope provides the possibility of identifying patients at risk of death or other important adverse events after 30 days of admission to the emergency department.Objective: To evaluate the performance of ROSE score in terms of mortality prediction and major adverse events at 7 and 30 days in adult patients with syncope admitted to the emergency department.Materials and methods: A prospective cohort study in patients with syncope who were admitted to the emergency room was performed. An operational analysis of the predictive ability for detection of possible complications was done by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and ROC curves.Results: 60 patients were evaluated. An area under the curve for prediction of mortality or major outcome at 7 and 30 days of 0.62 (95%CI: 0.45-0.78) was obtained, with sensitivity of 60%, specificity of 18.18%, PPV of 6.25% and NPV of 83%.Conclusion: ROSE score showed low sensitivity for predicting mortality or serious outcomes at 7 and 30 days. Its high negative predictive value makes it a useful prognostic tool in low risk patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paz-Meneses et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: