Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34574976›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Validity of Pneumonia Severity Assessment Scores in Africa and South Asia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Sarah Khalid Al Hussain, Amanj Kurdi, Nouf Abutheraa, Asma AlDawsari, Jacqueline Sneddon, Brian Godman, Ronald Andrew Seaton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Respiratory Emergencies in Disasters: A Narrative Review.Thoracic research and practice · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Sarah Khalid Al HussainStrathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G4 0RE, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7957-3159
Amanj KurdiStrathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G4 0RE, UK.
Nouf AbutheraaStrathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G4 0RE, UK.
Asma AlDawsariStrathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G4 0RE, UK.
Jacqueline SneddonScottish Antimicrobial Prescribing Group, Healthcare Improvement Scotland, Delta House, 48 West Nile Street, Glasgow G1 2NP, UK.
Brian GodmanStrathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G4 0RE, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6539-6972
Ronald Andrew SeatonScottish Antimicrobial Prescribing Group, Healthcare Improvement Scotland, Delta House, 48 West Nile Street, Glasgow G1 2NP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) severity assessment scores are widely used, their validity in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is not well defined. We aimed to investigate the validity and performance of the existing scores among adults in LMICs (Africa and South Asia).

methodsMedline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus and Web of Science were searched to 21 May 2020. Studies evaluating a pneumonia severity score/tool among adults in these countries were included. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis was performed to examine the scores' performance in predicting mortality.

resultsOf 9900 records, 11 studies were eligible, covering 12 tools. Only CURB-65 (Confusion, Urea, Respiratory Rate, Blood Pressure, Age ≥ 65 years) and CRB-65 (Confusion, Respiratory Rate, Blood Pressure, Age ≥ 65 years) were included in the meta-analysis. Both scores were effective in predicting mortality risk. Performance characteristics (with 95% Confidence Interval (CI)) at high (CURB-65 ≥ 3, CRB-65 ≥ 3) and intermediate-risk (CURB-65 ≥ 2, CRB-65 ≥ 1) cut-offs were as follows: pooled sensitivity, for CURB-65, 0.70 (95% CI = 0.25-0.94) and 0.96 (95% CI = 0.49-1.00), and for CRB-65, 0.09 (95% CI = 0.01-0.48) and 0.93 (95% CI = 0.50-0.99); pooled specificity, for CURB-65, 0.90 (95% CI = 0.73-0.96) and 0.64 (95% CI = 0.45-0.79), and for CRB-65, 0.99 (95% CI = 0.95-1.00) and 0.43 (95% CI = 0.24-0.64).

conclusionsCURB-65 and CRB-65 appear to be valid for predicting mortality in LMICs. CRB-65 may be employed where urea levels are unavailable. There is a lack of robust evidence regarding other scores, including the Pneumonia Severity Index (PSI).

Indexed as

community-acquired pneumoniadeveloping countriesmeta-analysismortalityprognosisseverity of illness indexsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34574976
PMCPMC8467534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.