ReviewArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2021
A systematic review of prediction models to diagnose COVID-19 in adults admitted to healthcare centers.
Review in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2021. 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical prediction models for diagnosis of COVID-19 among adult patients: a validation and agreement study.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Pooled it
- Combination of rRT-PCR and Clinical Features to Predict Coronavirus Disease 2019 for Nosocomial Infection Control.Infection and drug resistance · 2024Article
- Conventional and Novel Diagnostic Tools for the Diagnosis of Emerging SARS-CoV-2 Variants.Vaccines · 2023Review
- Evaluation of hematological parameters alterations in different waves of COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Modelling of a triage scoring tool for SARS-COV-2 PCR testing in health-care workers: data from the first German COVID-19 Testing Unit in Munich.BMC infectious diseases · 2022Article
- Development of Clinical Risk Scores for Detection of COVID-19 in Suspected Patients During a Local Outbreak in China: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International journal of public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic is putting significant pressure on the hospital system. To help clinicians in the rapid triage of patients at high risk of COVID-19 while waiting for RT-PCR results, different diagnostic prediction models have been developed. Our objective is to identify, compare, and evaluate performances of prediction models for the diagnosis of COVID-19 in adult patients in a health care setting.
methodsA search for relevant references has been conducted on the MEDLINE and Scopus databases. Rigorous eligibility criteria have been established (e.g., adult participants, suspicion of COVID-19, medical setting) and applied by two independent investigators to identify suitable studies at 2 different stages: (1) titles and abstracts screening and (2) full-texts screening. Risk of bias (RoB) has been assessed using the Prediction model study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Data synthesis has been presented according to a narrative report of findings.
resultsOut of the 2334 references identified by the literature search, 13 articles have been included in our systematic review. The studies, carried out all over the world, were performed in 2020. The included articles proposed a model developed using different methods, namely, logistic regression, score, machine learning, XGBoost. All the included models performed well to discriminate adults at high risks of presenting COVID-19 (all area under the ROC curve (AUROC) > 0.500). The best AUROC was observed for the model of Kurstjens et al (AUROC = 0.940 (0.910-0.960), which was also the model that achieved the highest sensitivity (98%). RoB was evaluated as low in general.
conclusionThirteen models have been developed since the start of the pandemic in order to diagnose COVID-19 in suspected patients from health care centers. All these models are effective, to varying degrees, in identifying whether patients were at high risk of having COVID-19.
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.