Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Early clinical outcome prediction based on the initial National Early Warning Score + Lactate (News+L) Score among adult emergency department patients
  1. Sion Jo1,
  2. Taeoh Jeong2,
  3. Boyoung Park3
  1. 1 Department of Emergency Medicine, Seoul Veterans Hospital, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, Korea
  2. 2 Department of Emergency Medicine, Jeonbuk National University Hospital, Jeonju, Jeollabuk-do, Korea
  3. 3 Department of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seongdong-gu, Korea
  1. Correspondence to Dr Taeoh Jeong, Department of Emergency Medicine, Jeonbuk National University Hospital, Jeonju, Korea; emmd{at}


Background The National Early Warning Score + Lactate (NEWS+L) Score has been previously shown to outperform NEWS alone in prediction of mortality and need for critical care in a small adult ED study. We validated the score in a large patient data set and constructed a model that allows early prediction of the probability of clinical outcomes based on the individual’s NEWS+L Score.

Methods In this retrospective study, we included all adult patients who visited the ED of a single urban academic tertiary-care university hospital in South Korea for five consecutive years (1 January 2015 to 31 December 2019). The initial (<1 hour) NEWS+L Score is routinely recorded electronically at our ED and was abstracted for each visit. The outcomes were hospital death or a composite of hospital death and intensive care unit admission at 24 hours, 48 hours and 72 hours. The data set was randomly split into train and test sets (1:1) for internal validation. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) value and area under the precision and recall curve (AUPRC) value were evaluated and logistic regression models were used to develop an equation to calculate the predicted probabilities for each of these outcomes according to the NEWS+L Score.

Results After excluding 808 patients (0.5%) from 149 007 patients in total, the study cohort consisted of 148 199 patients. The mean NEWS+L Score was 3.3±3.8. The AUROC value was 0.789~0.813 for the NEWS+L Score with good calibration (calibration-in-the-large=−0.082~0.001, slope=0.964~0.987, Brier Score=0.011~0.065). The AUPRC values of the NEWS+L Score for outcomes were 0.331~0.415. The AUROC and AUPRC values of the NEWS+L Score were greater than those of NEWS alone (AUROC 0.744~0.806 and AUPRC 0.316~0.380 for NEWS). Using the equation, 48 hours hospital mortality rates for NEWS+L Score of 5, 10 and 15 were found to be 1.1%, 3.1% and 8.8%, and for the composite outcome 9.2%, 27.5% and 58.5%, respectively.

Conclusion The NEWS+L Score has acceptable to excellent performance for risk estimation among undifferentiated adult ED patients, and outperforms NEWS alone.

  • emergency department
  • death

Data availability statement

No data are available.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

No data are available.

View Full Text


  • Handling editor Kirsty Challen

  • Contributors SJ designed the study. TJ supervised the overall data collection process, had full access to all the data in the study, and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data. BP conducted the data analysis. SJ wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. All authors provided substantial reviews and feedback on the final version of the manuscript. TJ is guarantor.

  • Funding This paper was supported by Fund of Biomedical Research Institute, Jeonbuk National University Hospital (CUH 2022-0001).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.