Cardona, Magnolia
Lewis, Ebony T.
Kristensen, Mette R.
Skjøt-Arkil, Helene
Ekmann, Anette Addy
Nygaard, Hanne H.
Jensen, Jonas J.
Jensen, Rune O.
Pedersen, Jonas L.
Turner, Robin M.
Garden, Frances
Alkhouri, Hatem
Asha, Stephen
Mackenzie, John
Perkins, Margaret
Suri, Sam
Holdgate, Anna
Winoto, Luis
Chang, David C. W.
Gallego-Luxan, Blanca
McCarthy, Sally
Petersen, John A.
Jensen, Birgitte N.
Backer Mogensen, Christian
Hillman, Ken
Brabrand, Mikkel
Funding for this research was provided by:
National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (1054146)
Article History
Received: 16 July 2018
Accepted: 24 October 2018
First Online: 31 October 2018
Compliance with ethical standards
:
: MC and KH developed the risk prediction tool in 2015 and have tested it retrospectively in several hospitals. This might be perceived by readers as non-financial conflict of interest given their knowledge of the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript. However, they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organisation or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; or expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), that may influence the validity of the study. All other authors certify that they have NO conflict of interest to report. The analyses were led by two co-authors (RMT and FG) who were not involved in the development of the tool, data collection or outcome ascertainment for this validation study.
: The study was approved in Australia by the hospital management teams and by the South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Ethics Committee [#15/026 HREC/15/POW/55 and data was stored in the UNSW secure server. The need for approval in Denmark was waivered by the Regional Ethics Committee of Southern Denmark, as this project was considered to be a quality improvement initiative without an intervention [CitationRef removed].
: Verbal information on the study preceded the request for written informed consent which was obtained from each individual if cognitively competent or their surrogate at the time of recruitment. Participants consented to being interviewed, giving access to hospital records during admission, and being contacted for follow-up outcome ascertainment. The original consent remained with the researchers and a copy went to the patient or their family.