ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2021
A cross sectional evaluation of the corona-score for swift identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection at a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
backgroundThe Corona-Score is one of the first and most widely used predictive model for coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The purpose of this study was to validate the performance of Corona-Score in a cohort of Pakistani patients pursuing care for suspected infection.
methodsAfter seeking institution's ethical committee exemption, results of serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP), ferritin, absolute lymphocyte and neutrophil counts, chest x-ray findings and demographics of suspected COVID-19 cases with respiratory symptoms were recouped from electronic medical record. The pre-validated score as proposed by Kurstjens S et al., was calculated. The subjects were divided into SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative on the basis of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) findings. Median and interquartile range (IQR) was calculated for the score in the two groups and the difference was assessed using the independent sample median test. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was plotted. Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS 26, with statistical significance set at
resultsA total of sixty cases, 30 (50%) RT-PCR positive and 30 (50%) negative with a median Corona-Score of 3.5 (IQR: 0-6) and 1.5 (IQR: 0-4) respectively, were evaluated. A p-value of 0.61 showing no statistically significant between group differences was observed. The area under the curve of Corona-Score in our population of patients was 0.59 (95% CI: 0.45-0.74). Using the cut-off values of four originally identified by Kurstjens et al. the model displayed 43.3% sensitivity and 70% specificity with an overall accuracy of 56.67%.
conclusionCorona-Score displayed a lower diagnostic accuracy which may be attributable to the different genetic framework, viral strain and severity of the disease in Pakistanis compared to the population where this score was originally validated. However, large multi-center studies across the country are dire need of time to evaluate the score in overly exhausted health care setup and limited availability of PCR testing.
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.