Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34737556›Full record

ArticleClinical interventions in aging2021

Comparison of Different Scoring Systems for Prediction of Mortality and ICU Admission in Elderly CAP Population.

Chunxin Lv, Yue Chen, Wen Shi, Teng Pan, Jinhai Deng, Jiayi Xu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical interventions in aging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Chunxin Lv *Oncology Department, Punan Hospital of Pudong New District, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Yue Chen *Centre for Cancer Genomics and Computational Biology, Barts Cancer Institute, London, EC1M 6BE, UK.
Wen ShiDepartment of Dermatology, Punan Hospital of Pudong New District, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Teng PanTianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin, People's Republic of China.
Jinhai DengKey Laboratory of Medical Immunology, Department of Immunology, Peking University Center for Human Disease Genomics, Ministry of Health, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Jiayi XuGeriatric Department, Fudan University, Minhang Hospital, Shanghai, 201100, People's Republic of China.
Punan Hospital · CNFudan University · CNInstitute of Cancer Research · GBPeking University · CNTianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe incidence and mortality rate of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in elderly patients were higher than the younger population. Different scoring systems, including The quick Sequential Organ Function Assessment (qSOFA), Combination of Confusion, Urea, Respiratory Rate, Blood Pressure, and Age ≥65 (CURB-65), Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and National Early Warning Score (NEWS), were used widely for predicting mortality and ICU admission of patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This study aimed to identify the most suitable score system for better hospitalization.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed elderly patients with CAP in Minhang Hospital, Fudan University from 1 January 2018 to 1 January 2020. We recorded information of the patients including age, gender, underlying disease, consciousness state, vital signs, physiological and laboratory variables and further calculated the qSOFA, CURB-65, MEWS, and NEWS scores. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to predict the mortality risk and ICU admission. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used in survival rate.

resultsIn total, 1044 patients were selected for analysis and divided into two groups, namely survivor groups (902 cases) and non-survivor groups (142 cases). Depending on ICU admission enrolled patients were classified into ICU admission (n = 102) and non-ICU admission (n = 942) groups. Mortality expressed as AUC values were 0.844 (p < 0.001), 0.868 (p < 0.001), 0.927 (p < 0.001) and 0.892 (p < 0.001) for qSOFA, CURB 65, MEWS and NEWS, respectively. There were clear differences in MEWS vs CURB-65 (p < 0.0001), MEWS vs NEWS (p < 0.001), MEWS vs qSOFA (p < 0.0001). For ICU-admission, the AUC values of qSOFA, CURB-65, MEWS and NEWS scores were 0.866 (p < 0.001), 0.854 (p < 0.001), 0.922 (p < 0.001), 0.976 (p < 0.001), respectively. There were significant differences in NEWS vs CURB-65 (p < 0.0001), NEWS vs MEWS (p < 0.001), NEWS vs qSOFA (p < 0.0001).

conclusionWe explored the outcome prediction values of CURB65, qSOFA, MEWS and NEWS for patients aged 65-years and older with community-acquired pneumonia. We found that MEWS showed superiority over the other severity scores in predicting hospital mortality, and NEWS showed superiority over the other scores in predicting ICU admission.

Indexed as

PneumoniaSepsisAgedHospitalizationHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsOrgan Dysfunction ScoresPrognosisRetrospective StudiesROC Curvecommunity-acquired pneumoniaMEWSNEWSprognosis

Identifiers

PMID34737556
PMCPMC8560064
OpenAlexW3209341000

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.