Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34521623›Full record

ReviewBMJ health & care informatics2021

Evaluating risk stratification scoring systems to predict mortality in patients with COVID-19.

Kelly Chu, Batool Alharahsheh, Naveen Garg, Payal Guha

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ health & care informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. A Systematic Review of Predictor Composition, Outcomes, Risk of Bias, and Validation of COVID-19 Prognostic Scores.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. How Will AI Shape the Future of Pandemic Response? Early Clues From Data Analytics.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

Kelly ChuFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK kc1420@ic.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0527-373X
Batool AlharahshehFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Naveen GargFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Payal GuhaFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated efficient and accurate triaging of patients for more effective allocation of resources and treatment.

objectivesThe objectives are to investigate parameters and risk stratification tools that can be applied to predict mortality within 90 days of hospital admission in patients with COVID-19.

methodsA literature search of original studies assessing systems and parameters predicting mortality of patients with COVID-19 was conducted using MEDLINE and EMBASE.

results589 titles were screened, and 76 studies were found investigating the prognostic ability of 16 existing scoring systems (area under the receiving operator curve (AUROC) range: 0.550-0.966), 38 newly developed COVID-19-specific prognostic systems (AUROC range: 0.6400-0.9940), 15 artificial intelligence (AI) models (AUROC range: 0.840-0.955) and 16 studies on novel blood parameters and imaging. DISCUSSION: Current scoring systems generally underestimate mortality, with the highest AUROC values found for APACHE II and the lowest for SMART-COP. Systems featuring heavier weighting on respiratory parameters were more predictive than those assessing other systems. Cardiac biomarkers and CT chest scans were the most commonly studied novel parameters and were independently associated with mortality, suggesting potential for implementation into model development. All types of AI modelling systems showed high abilities to predict mortality, although none had notably higher AUROC values than COVID-19-specific prediction models. All models were found to have bias, including lack of prospective studies, small sample sizes, single-centre data collection and lack of external validation.

conclusionThe single parameters established within this review would be useful to look at in future prognostic models in terms of the predictive capacity their combined effect may harness.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsRisk AssessmentArtificial IntelligenceHumansCOVID-19healthcare sectorinformation managementmedical informaticspatient care

Identifiers

PMID34521623
PMCPMC8441221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.