Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34531219›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

COVID outcome prediction in the emergency department (COPE): using retrospective Dutch hospital data to develop simple and valid models for predicting mortality and need for intensive care unit admission in patients who present at the emergency department with suspected COVID-19.

David van Klaveren, Alexandros Rekkas, Jelmer Alsma, Rob J C G Verdonschot, Dick T J J Koning, Marlijn J A Kamps, Tom Dormans, Robert Stassen, Sebastiaan Weijer, Klaas-Sierk Arnold and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

19 authors.

David van KlaverenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands d.vanklaveren@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-2096-606X
Alexandros RekkasDepartment of Medical Informatics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jelmer AlsmaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Rob J C G VerdonschotEmergency Department, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Dick T J J KoningDepartment of Intensive Care, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Marlijn J A KampsDepartment of Intensive Care, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Tom DormansDepartment of Intensive Care, Zuyderland Medical Centre Heerlen, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Robert StassenDepartment of Traumatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Sebastiaan WeijerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Antonius Hospital Sneek, Sneek, The Netherlands.
Klaas-Sierk ArnoldDepartment of Intensive Care, Antonius Hospital Sneek, Sneek, The Netherlands.
Benjamin TomlowDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Isala Hospitals, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Hilde R H de GeusDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Rozemarijn L van Bruchem-VisserDepartment of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6833-7641
Jelle R MiedemaDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Annelies VerbonDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Els van NoodDepartment of Internal Medicine, Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
David M KentPredictive Analytics and Comparative Effectiveness Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Stephanie C E SchuitExecutive Board, UMCG, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Hester LingsmaDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Tufts Clinical and Translational Science Institute (Pilot Supplement)UL1TR002544 · NCATS · TUFTS UNIVERSITY BOSTON · PI SELKER, HARRY P. · 2018 to 2022
$50.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002544
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDevelop simple and valid models for predicting mortality and need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in patients who present at the emergency department (ED) with suspected COVID-19.

designRetrospective.

settingSecondary care in four large Dutch hospitals.

participantsPatients who presented at the ED and were admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19. We used 5831 first-wave patients who presented between March and August 2020 for model development and 3252 second-wave patients who presented between September and December 2020 for model validation. OUTCOME MEASURES: We developed separate logistic regression models for in-hospital death and for need for ICU admission, both within 28 days after hospital admission. Based on prior literature, we considered quickly and objectively obtainable patient characteristics, vital parameters and blood test values as predictors. We assessed model performance by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and by calibration plots.

resultsOf 5831 first-wave patients, 629 (10.8%) died within 28 days after admission. ICU admission was fully recorded for 2633 first-wave patients in 2 hospitals, with 214 (8.1%) ICU admissions within 28 days. A simple model-COVID outcome prediction in the emergency department (COPE)-with age, respiratory rate, C reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, albumin and urea captured most of the ability to predict death. COPE was well calibrated and showed good discrimination for mortality in second-wave patients (AUC in four hospitals: 0.82 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.86); 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90); 0.79 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.88); 0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.86)). COPE was also able to identify patients at high risk of needing ICU admission in second-wave patients (AUC in two hospitals: 0.84 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.90); 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.95)).

conclusionsCOPE is a simple tool that is well able to predict mortality and need for ICU admission in patients who present to the ED with suspected COVID-19 and may help patients and doctors in decision making.

Indexed as

COVID-19Emergency Service, HospitalHospital MortalityHospitalsHumansIntensive Care UnitsRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2accident & emergency medicineCOVID-19epidemiologypublic health

Identifiers

PMID34531219
PMCPMC8449847

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.