ArticlePulmonology
Stratifying risk outcomes among adult COVID-19 inpatients with high flow oxygen: The R4 score.
Article in Pulmonology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic models in COVID-19 infection that predict severity: a systematic review.European journal of epidemiology · 2023Pooled it
- Predicting Failure at Initiation of High-Flow Nasal Oxygen in Patients With COVID-19: Literature Review, Development and Internal Validation of a Prediction Model.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2026Observational
- Prediction of high-flow nasal cannula failure in critically ill patients: a narrative review.Journal of intensive care · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula therapy on clinical outcomes in adults with COVID-19: A systematic review.Canadian journal of respiratory therapy : CJRT = Revue canadienne de la therapie respiratoire : RCTR · 2023Review
- The efficiency of high-flow nasal cannula for adult patients with coronavirus disease 19 in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.Annals of thoracic medicineArticle
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 3 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh flow oxygen therapy (HFO) is a widely used intervention for pulmonary complications. Amid the coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, HFO became a popular alternative to conventional oxygen supplementation therapies. Risk stratification tools have been repurposed -and new ones developed- to estimate outcome risks among COVID-19 patients. This study aims to provide a simple risk stratification system to predict invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) or death among COVID-19 inpatients on HFO.
methodsAmong 529 adult inpatients with COVID-19 pneumonia, we selected unadjusted clinical risk factors for developing the composite endpoint of IMV or death. The risk for the primary outcome by each category was estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Bootstrapping was used to validate the results.
resultsAge above 62, eGFR under 60 ml/min, room air SpO2 ≤89 % upon admission, history of hypertension, history of diabetes, and any comorbidity (cancer, cardiovascular disease, COPD/ asthma, hypothyroidism, or autoimmune disease) were considered for the score. Each of the six criteria scored 1 point. The score was further simplified into 4 categories: 1) 0 criteria, 2) 1 criterion, 3) 2-3 criteria, and 4) ≥4 criteria. Taking the first category as the reference, risk estimates for the primary endpoint were HR; 2.94 [1.67 - 5.26], 4.08 [2.63 - 7.05], and 6.63 [3.74 - 11.77], respectively. In ROC analysis, the AUC for the model was 0.72.
conclusionsOur score uses simple criteria to estimate the risk for IMV or death among COVID-19 inpatients with HFO. Higher category reflects consistent increases in risk for the endpoint.
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.