ArticleCurrent infectious disease reports2008
The value of prognostic indices for pneumonia.
Article in Current infectious disease reports, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validating a novel index (SWAT-Bp) to predict mortality risk of community-acquired pneumonia in Malawi.Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2018Article
- Are third-generation cephalosporins unavoidable for empirical therapy of community-acquired pneumonia in adult patients who require ICU admission? A retrospective study.Annals of intensive care · 2017Article
- Health promotion, risk stratification, and treatment options to decrease hospitalization rates for community-acquired pneumonia in adults.Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners · 2014Article
- Guidelines for diagnosis and management of community- and hospital-acquired pneumonia in adults: Joint ICS/NCCP(I) recommendations.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society · 2012Article
- Population-based cohort study of outpatients with pneumonia: rationale, design and baseline characteristics.BMC infectious diseases · 2012Article
- Death risk stratification in elderly patients with covid-19. A comparative cohort study in nursing homes outbreaks.Archives of gerontology and geriatricsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the most important decisions in the management of community-acquired pneumonia is deciding the care site, which affects morbidity, mortality, and costs. Clinical judgment alone is difficult and imprecise. The Pneumonia Severity Index score and the CURB-65 (confusion, urea nitrogen, respiratory rate, blood pressure, 65 years of age and older) score are validated prognostic indices to predict mortality, and they can identify low-risk patients who may be eligible for outpatient management. However, limitations of the scoring systems preclude their isolated use, and they can only be recommended as an aid to guide hospital admission decisions. The Pneumonia Severity Index score is slightly better at identifying the lowest risk patients, whereas CURB-65 is much simpler to use. As an adjunct to clinical judgment, we consider CURB-65 to be the most useful prognostic index for identifying low-risk patients.
Identifiers
18510884What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.