Observational studyClinical medicine (London, England)2022
Utility of severity assessment tools in COVID-19 pneumonia: a multicentre observational study.
Observational study in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2022. 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
- Predictability of Severity Scores in Patients over 70 Years Old with COVID-19 Infection: Results from a Single-Center Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Severity Scores in SARS-CoV-2 Infection-A Comprehensive Bibliometric Review and Visualization Analysis.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Asia Pacific perspectives on the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic: A follow-up survey.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2022Article
- Do you need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows?Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
42 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeverity scores in pneumonia and sepsis are being applied to SARS-CoV-2 infection. We aimed to assess whether these severity scores are accurate predictors of early adverse outcomes in COVID-19.
methodsWe conducted a multicentre observational study of hospitalised SARS-CoV-2 infection. We assessed risk scores (CURB65, qSOFA, Lac-CURB65, MuLBSTA and NEWS2) in relation to admission to intensive care or death within 7 days of admission, defined as early severe adverse events (ESAE). The 4C Mortality Score was also assessed in a sub-cohort of patients.
findingsIn 2,387 participants, the overall mortality was 18%. In all scores examined, increasing score was associated with increased risk of ESAE. Area under the curve (AUC) to predict ESAE for CURB65, qSOFA, Lac-CURB65, MuLBSTA and NEWS2 were 0.61, 0.62, 0.59, 0.59 and 0.68, respectively. AUC to predict ESAE was 0.60 with ISARIC 4C Mortality Score.
conclusionNone of the scores examined accurately predicted ESAE in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Non-validated scores should not be used to inform clinical decision making in COVID-19.
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.