Evidence Hub

The impact of the CERTAIN clinical decision support tool for structured intensive care unit admission and rounding is patient sex-independent: a secondary analysis of CERTAIN

Swart P, Tekin A, Dong Y, Vukoja M, Kashyap R, Gajic O, Paulus F, Schultz MJ et al.

Critical care science, 2025

4,256 participants

Abstract

Objective: Implementing the Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury (CERTAIN) decision support tool for structured intensive care unit admission and rounding was associated with an increased adherence to best care practices. We determined whether this association was patient sex-dependent.

Design: Post hoc analysis of CERTAIN.

Setting: prospective multinational quality improvement study.

Patients: Adult patients admitted to one of the participating intensive care units.

Interventions: Implementation of the CERTAIN decision support tool.

Measurements: We compared incidence rates of omission of delivery of ten best care practices, including deep vein thrombosis and peptic ulcer prophylaxis, head of bed elevation, daily oral care, spontaneous breathing trials, family conferences, assessment of need for central lines and urinary catheters, and prescription of antimicrobials and sedation, between sexes, before and after implementation of the decision support tool. In addition, we determined whether sex differences existed amongst high-and middle-income countries.

Main results: CERTAIN comprised a total of 4,256 patients, with 588 females and 859 males before the implementation of the decision support tool and 1,169 females and 1,640 males after its implementation. Overall, there was no notable difference in care between sexes, neither before nor after implementation, and both sexes in high-income and middle-income countries experienced equal…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,256 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free