Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34611122›Full record

ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2021

A Simple Clinical Prediction Tool for COVID-19 in Primary Care with Epidemiology: Temperature-Leukocytes-CT Results.

Wanming Hao, Long Zhao, Xinjuan Yu, Song Wu, Weifeng Xie, Ning Wang, Weihong Lv, Akshay Sood, Shuguang Leng, Yongchun Li and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Wanming HaoDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China (mainland).
Long ZhaoDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China (mainland).
Xinjuan YuDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China (mainland).
Song WuSchool of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine, Anhui University of Chinese Medicine, Hefei, Anhui, China (mainland).
Weifeng XieDepartment of Intensive Care Unit, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China (mainland).
Ning WangDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China (mainland).
Weihong LvDepartment of Hospital Infection, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China (mainland).
Akshay SoodDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Shuguang LengDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Yongchun LiDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China (mainland).
Qing SunDepartment of Special Medicine, No.971 Hospital Navy, Qingdao, Shandong, China (mainland).
Jun GuanDepartment of Cardiology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China (mainland).
Wei HanDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong, China (mainland).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Effective identification of patients with suspected COVID-19 is vital for the management. This study aimed to establish a simple clinical prediction model for COVID-19 in primary care. MATERIAL AND METHODS We consecutively enrolled 60 confirmed cases and 152 suspected cases with COVID-19 into the study. The training cohort consisted of 30 confirmed and 78 suspected cases, whereas the validation cohort consisted of 30 confirmed and 74 suspected cases. Four clinical variables - epidemiological history (E), body temperature (T), leukocytes count (L), and chest computed tomography (C) - were collected to construct a preliminary prediction model (model A). By integerizing coefficients of model A, a clinical prediction model (model B) was constructed. Finally, the scores of each variable in model B were summed up to build the ETLC score. RESULTS The preliminary prediction model A was Logit (YA)=2.657X₁+1.153X₂+2.125X₃+2.828X₄-10.771, while the model B was Logit (YB)=2.5X₁+1X₂+2X₃+3X₄-10. No significant difference was found between the area under the curve (AUC) of model A (0.920, 95% CI: 0.875-0.953) and model B (0.919, 95% CI: 0.874-0.952) (Z=0.035, P=0.972). When ETLC score was more than or equal to 9.5, the sensitivity and specificity for COVID-19 was 76.7% (46/60) and 90.1% (137/152), respectively, and the positive and negative predictive values were 75.4% (46/61) and 90.7% (137/151), respectively. CONCLUSIONS The ETLC score is helpful for efficiently identifying patients with suspected COVID-19.

Indexed as

Body TemperatureCOVID-19Diagnosis, Computer-AssistedHumansLeukocyte CountLogistic ModelsPrimary Health CareSARS-CoV-2Tomography, X-Ray Computed

Identifiers

PMID34611122
PMCPMC8504192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.