ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2021
Application of a prediction model with laboratory indexes in the risk stratification of patients with COVID-19.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Procalcitonin as a predictive marker in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- The COVID-19 pandemic in Brazilian pregnant and postpartum women: results from the REBRACO prospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Optimal Triage for COVID-19 Patients Under Limited Health Care Resources With a Parsimonious Machine Learning Prediction Model and Threshold Optimization Using Discrete-Event Simulation: Development Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Machine Learning Algorithms are Superior to Conventional Regression Models in Predicting Risk Stratification of COVID-19 Patients.Risk management and healthcare policy · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the present study, a prediction model with combined laboratory indexes in risk stratification of patients with COVID-19 was established and tested. The data of 170 patients with COVID-19 who were divided into an asymptomatic-moderate group (141 cases) and severe or above group (29 cases) were retrospectively analyzed. The clinical characteristics and laboratory indexes of the two groups were compared. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to construct the prediction model based on laboratory indexes. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to compare the diagnostic efficacy of different indexes. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to quantify and compare the clinical validity of the prediction models. There were significant differences in blood cell count, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) levels between the severe or above group and the asymptomatic-moderate group (all P<0.05). Among all individual indexes, hsCRP had the highest diagnostic efficacy (area under the curve=0.870), with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.828 and 0.802, respectively. The red blood cell count, hsCRP and PCT were used to construct the prediction model. The AUC of the prediction model was higher than that of hsCRP (0.912 vs. 0.870) but the difference was not significant (P=0.307). DCA suggested that the net benefit of the prediction model was higher than that of hsCRP in most cases and significantly higher than that of PCT, lymphocytes and monocytes. The prediction model with combined laboratory indexes was able to more effectively predict the clinical classification of patients with COVID-19 and may be used as a tool for risk stratification of patients.
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.