ArticleCritical care explorations2020
Clinical Risk Prediction Scores in Coronavirus Disease 2019: Beware of Low Validity and Clinical Utility.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Population risk factors for severe disease and mortality in COVID-19: A global systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Predicting the outcome of death by CALL Score in COVID-19 patients.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024Article
- Moderate COVID-19: Clinical Trajectories and Predictors of Progression and Outcomes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Predefined and data driven CT densitometric features predict critical illness and hospital length of stay in COVID-19 patients.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Performance of the CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM scores in terms of severity for COVID-19 patients.International journal of clinical practice · 2021Article
- The incremental value of computed tomography of COVID-19 pneumonia in predicting ICU admission.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Differences in Inflammatory Marker Kinetics between the First and Second Wave of COVID-19 Patients Admitted to the ICU: A Retrospective, Single-Center Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- First and Second Waves of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Madrid, Spain: Clinical Characteristics and Hematological Risk Factors Associated With Critical/Fatal Illness.Critical care explorations · 2021Article
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
Several risk stratification tools were developed to predict disease progression in coronavirus disease 2019, with no external validation to date. We attempted to validate three previously published risk-stratification tools in a multicenter study. Primary outcome was a composite outcome of development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 disease leading to ICU admission or death censored at hospital discharge or 30 days. We collected data from 169 patients. Patients were 73 years old (59-82 yr old), 66 of 169 (39.1%) were female, 57 (33.7%) had one comorbidity, and 80 (47.3%) had two or more comorbidities. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (95% CI) for the COVID-GRAM score was 0.636 (0.550-0.722), for the CALL score 0.500 (0.411-0.589), and for the nomogram 0.628 (0.543-0.714).
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.