ArticleCureus2021
Comparison of the Performance of Various Scores in Predicting Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endothelin-1 in combination with CRB-65 enhance risk stratification in COVID-19 patients.Infection · 2025Article
- Article
- Role of c-Src and reactive oxygen species in cardiovascular diseases.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2023Review
- "Underneath the visible" - COVID-19 Risk prediction tools in a high-volume, low-resource Emergency Department.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2022-03-17Concerns/Issues about Authorship/Affiliation · Concerns/Issues about Data · False/Forged Authorship · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Lack of IRB/IACUC Approval and/or Compliance · · Rahil Barkat named for data theft and forged authorship.
- Retracted
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major social and economic challenge, devastating the health care system in several countries around the world. Mortality scores are important as they can help health care professionals to plan treatment as per the patients' condition for proper resource allocation. When it comes to patients, it provides invaluable information for implementing advance directives. The aim of the study is to validate mortality scores for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19. Methodology This was a retrospective cohort study that included data from three tertiary care hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan. Data of patients diagnosed with confirmed COVID-19 infection and hospitalized in Ziauddin Hospital, Aga Khan Hospital, and Liaquat National Hospital were enrolled in the study from November 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. Data was extracted from the hospital management information system (HMIS) using a structured questionnaire. Results Overall, 835 patients were included in the final analysis. The mean age of patients was 53.29 (SD ± 15.17) years, and 675 patients (80.72%) were males. The sensitivity of the CALL score is highest among all four scores, i.e., 77.25%, and the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score has the lowest sensitivity (59.79%). However, CALL has the lowest specificity (58.04%), while qSOFA has the highest specificity (73.91%). However, MulBSTA and CRB-65 have a sensitivity of 70.11% and 64.96%, respectively. Conclusion The current study showed that the CALL score had better sensitivity as compared to other mortality scores.
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.