Trial reportBMJ open2021
External validation of the 4C Mortality Score for patients with COVID-19 and pre-existing cardiovascular diseases/risk factors.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Single catheter primary percutaneous coronary intervention method in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the SPEEDY-PCI study.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2025Trial
- Validation of CURB-65, CRB-65, NEWS2, qSOFA, and 4C scores for predicting mortality in COVID-19 patients across seven emergency Departments in Colombia.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Predictive accuracy of 4C Mortality Score and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores for mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care unit.World journal of critical care medicine · 2025Article
- Impact of Surge Strain and Pandemic Progression on Prognostication by an Established COVID-19-Specific Severity Score.Critical care explorations · 2023Article
- Validation of a specialized evaluation system for COVID-19 in Japan: A retrospective, multicenter cohort study.Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy · 2023Article
- Utility of the 4C ISARIC mortality score in hospitalized COVID-19 patients at a large tertiary Saudi Arabian center.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- External Validation of Mortality Scores among High-Risk COVID-19 Patients: A Romanian Retrospective Study in the First Pandemic Year.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Assessment of thromboembolism risk in COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular disease risk factors: Analysis of a Japanese Nationwide Registry.Thrombosis research · 2022Article
- External validation of risk scores to predict in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized due to coronavirus disease 2019.European journal of internal medicine · 2022Article
- External Validation of the Modified 4C Deterioration Model and 4C Mortality Score for COVID-19 Patients in a Swiss Tertiary Hospital.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Cardiovascular considerations during the COVID-19 pandemic: A focused review for practice in Japan.Global health & medicine · 2022Review
- Evaluation and Comparison of the Predictive Value of 4C Mortality Score, NEWS, and CURB-65 in Poor Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Study from a Single Center in Romania.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Clinical Utility of 4C Mortality Scores among Japanese COVID-19 Patients: A Multicenter Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
12 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPredictive algorithms to inform risk management decisions are needed for patients with COVID-19, although the traditional risk scores have not been adequately assessed in Asian patients. We aimed to evaluate the performance of a COVID-19-specific prediction model, the 4C (Coronavirus Clinical Characterisation Consortium) Mortality Score, along with other conventional critical care risk models in Japanese nationwide registry data.
designRetrospective cohort study. SETTING AND
participantsHospitalised patients with COVID-19 and cardiovascular disease or coronary risk factors from January to May 2020 in 49 hospitals in Japan.
main outcome measuresTwo different types of outcomes, in-hospital mortality and a composite outcome, defined as the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and mortality.
resultsThe risk scores for 693 patients were tested by predicting in-hospital mortality for all patients and composite endpoint among those not intubated at baseline (n=659). The number of events was 108 (15.6%) for mortality and 178 (27.0%) for composite endpoints. After missing values were multiply imputed, the performance of the 4C Mortality Score was assessed and compared with three prediction models that have shown good discriminatory ability (RISE UP score, A-DROP score and the Rapid Emergency Medicine Score (REMS)). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the 4C Mortality Score was 0.84 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.88) for in-hospital mortality and 0.78 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.81) for the composite endpoint. It showed greater discriminatory ability compared with other scores, except for the RISE UP score, for predicting in-hospital mortality (AUC: 0.82, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.86). Similarly, the 4C Mortality Score showed a positive net reclassification improvement index over the A-DROP and REMS for mortality and over all three scores for the composite endpoint. The 4C Mortality Score model showed good calibration, regardless of outcome.
conclusionsThe 4C Mortality Score performed well in an independent external COVID-19 cohort and may enable appropriate disposition of patients and allocation of medical resources.
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.