Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33239114›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and infection2020

Development and validation of the patient history COVID-19 (PH-Covid19) scoring system: a multivariable prediction model of death in Mexican patients with COVID-19.

J Mancilla-Galindo, J M Vera-Zertuche, A R Navarro-Cruz, O Segura-Badilla, G Reyes-Velázquez, F J Tepepa-López, P Aguilar-Alonso, J de J Vidal-Mayo, A Kammar-García

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

J Mancilla-GalindoUnidad de Investigación UNAM-INC, Instituto Nacional de Cardiología Ignacio Chávez, Ciudad de México, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-0718-467X
J M Vera-ZertucheDepartamento de Endocrinología, Clínica de Obesidad, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Ciudad de México, Mexico.
A R Navarro-CruzFacultad de Ciencias Químicas, Departamento de Bioquímica y Alimentos, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico.
O Segura-BadillaFacultad de Ciencias de la Salud y de los Alimentos, Departamento de Nutrición y Salud Pública, Programa UBB Saludable, Universidad del Bío-Bío, Chillán, Chile.
G Reyes-VelázquezDepartamento de Cardiología, Centro Médico Nacional La Raza, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Ciudad de México, Mexico.
F J Tepepa-LópezServicio de Endoscopia, Hospital Juárez Centro, Ciudad de México, Mexico.
P Aguilar-AlonsoFacultad de Ciencias Químicas, Departamento de Bioquímica y Alimentos, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Puebla, Mexico.
J de J Vidal-MayoDepartamento de Atención Institucional Continua y Urgencias, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Ciudad de México, Mexico.
A Kammar-GarcíaSección de Estudios de Posgrado e Investigación, Escuela Superior de Medicina, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Ciudad de México, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-3875-0945

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most of the existing prediction models for COVID-19 lack validation, are inadequately reported or are at high risk of bias, a reason which has led to discourage their use. Few existing models have the potential to be extensively used by healthcare providers in low-resource settings since many require laboratory and imaging predictors. Therefore, we sought to develop and validate a multivariable prediction model of death in Mexican patients with COVID-19, by using demographic and patient history predictors. We conducted a national retrospective cohort study in two different sets of patients from the Mexican COVID-19 Epidemiologic Surveillance Study. Patients with a positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV-2 and complete unduplicated data were eligible. In total, 83 779 patients were included to develop the scoring system through a multivariable Cox regression model; 100 000, to validate the model. Eight predictors (age, sex, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunosuppression, hypertension, obesity and chronic kidney disease) were included in the scoring system called PH-Covid19 (range of values: -2 to 25 points). The predictive model has a discrimination of death of 0.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.796-0.804). The PH-Covid19 scoring system was developed and validated in Mexican patients to aid clinicians to stratify patients with COVID-19 at risk of fatal outcomes, allowing for better and efficient use of resources.

Indexed as

ComorbidityCOVID-19COVID-19 Nucleic Acid TestingForecastingHumansMexicoModels, TheoreticalPandemicsProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSARS-CoV-2COVID-19Mexicoprediction modelSARS-CoV-2scoring system

Identifiers

PMID33239114
PMCPMC7729170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.