ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2014
Validation of dengue infection severity score.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prognostic Models in Patients with Dengue: A Systematic Review.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Secondary Dengue Infection Elicits Earlier Elevations in IL-6 and IL-10 Levels.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Trends of Dengue Disease Epidemiology.Virology : research and treatment · 2017Review
- Dengue infection severity score - improvised disease management.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2016Article
- Accuracy of Clinical Diagnosis of Dengue Episodes in the RV144 HIV Vaccine Efficacy Trial in Thailand.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo validate a simple scoring system to classify dengue viral infection severity to patients in different settings.
methodsThe developed scoring system derived from 777 patients from three tertiary-care hospitals was applied to 400 patients in the validation data obtained from another three tertiary-care hospitals. Percentage of correct classification, underestimation, and overestimation was compared. The score discriminative performance in the two datasets was compared by analysis of areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves.
resultsPatients in the validation data were different from those in the development data in some aspects. In the validation data, classifying patients into three severity levels (dengue fever, dengue hemorrhagic fever, and dengue shock syndrome) yielded 50.8% correct prediction (versus 60.7% in the development data), with clinically acceptable underestimation (18.6% versus 25.7%) and overestimation (30.8% versus 13.5%). Despite the difference in predictive performances between the validation and the development data, the overall prediction of the scoring system is considered high.
conclusionThe developed severity score may be applied to classify patients with dengue viral infection into three severity levels with clinically acceptable under- or overestimation. Its impact when used in routine clinical practice should be a topic for further study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.