Delayed Admission to the Intensive Care Unit and Mortality of Critically Ill Adults: Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Delayed admission of patients to the intensive care unit (ICU) is increasing worldwide and can be followed by adverse outcomes when critical care treatment is not provided timely. This systematic review and meta‐analysis appraised and synthesized the published literature about the association between delayed ICU admission and mortality of adult patients. Articles published from inception up to August 2021 in English‐language, peer‐reviewed journals indexed in CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched by using key terms. Delayed ICU admission constituted the intervention, while mortality for any predefined time period was the outcome. Risk for bias was evaluated with the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale and additional criteria. Study findings were synthesized qualitatively, while the odds ratios (ORs) for mortality with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined quantitatively. Thirty‐four observational studies met inclusion criteria. Risk for bias was low in most studies. Unadjusted mortality was reported in 33 studies and was significantly higher in the delayed ICU admission group in 23 studies. Adjusted mortality was reported in 18 studies, and delayed ICU admission was independently associated with significantly higher mortality in 13 studies. Overall, pooled OR for mortality in case of delayed ICU admission was 1.61 (95% CI 1.44‐1.81). Interstudy heterogeneity was high ( I 2 = 66.96 % ). According to subgroup analysis, OR for mortality was remarkably higher in postoperative patients (OR, 2.44, 95% CI 1.49‐4.01). These findings indicate that delayed ICU admission is significantly associated with mortality of critically ill adults and highlight the importance of providing timely critical care in non‐ICU settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".