Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32311790›Full record

ArticleAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2020

Comparing Rapid Scoring Systems in Mortality Prediction of Critically Ill Patients With Novel Coronavirus Disease.

Hai Hu, Ni Yao, Yanru Qiu

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

92 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Why do men have worse COVID-19-related outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis with sex adjusted for age.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

32 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Hai HuFrom the, Emergency Office of West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9846-5169
Ni Yaothe, China International Emergency Medical Team, Chengdu, China.
Yanru Qiuthe, COVID-19 Ward of Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.

Funding

Novel Coronavirus Research Fund of West China Hospital, Sichuan University HX2019nCoV063
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesRapid and early severity-of-illness assessment appears to be important for critically ill patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the rapid scoring system on admission of these patients.

methodsA total of 138 medical records of critically ill patients with COVID-19 were included in the study. Demographic and clinical characteristics on admission used for calculating Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS) and outcomes (survival or death) were collected for each case and extracted for analysis. All patients were divided into two age subgroups (<65 years and ≥65 years). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed for overall patients and both subgroups.

resultsThe median [25th quartile, 75th quartile] of MEWS of survivors versus nonsurvivors were 1 [1, 2] and 2 [1, 3] and those of REMS were 5 [2, 6] and 7 [6, 10], respectively. In overall analysis, the area under the ROC curve for the REMS in predicting mortality was 0.833 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.737 to 0.928), higher than that of MEWS (0.677, 95% CI = 0.541 to 0.813). An optimal cutoff of REMS (≥6) had a sensitivity of 89.5%, a specificity of 69.8%, a positive predictive value of 39.5%, and a negative predictive value of 96.8%. In the analysis of subgroup of patients aged <65 years, the area under the ROC curve for the REMS in predicting mortality was 0.863 (95% CI = 0.743 to 0.941), higher than that of MEWS (0.603, 95% CI = 0.462 to 0.732).

conclusionTo our knowledge, this study was the first exploration on rapid scoring systems for critically ill patients with COVID-19. The REMS could provide emergency clinicians with an effective adjunct risk stratification tool for critically ill patients with COVID-19, especially for the patients aged <65 years. The effectiveness of REMS for screening these patients is attributed to its high negative predictive value.

Indexed as

Hospital MortalityAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBetacoronavirusBlood PressureCerebrovascular DisordersChinaComorbidityCoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Critical IllnessEarly Warning ScoreEmergency MedicineOxygen

Identifiers

PMID32311790
PMCPMC7264631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.