Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35279399›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Digital health2022

Real-world evaluation of rapid and laboratory-free COVID-19 triage for emergency care: external validation and pilot deployment of artificial intelligence driven screening.

Andrew A S Soltan, Jenny Yang, Ravi Pattanshetty, Alex Novak, Yang Yang, Omid Rohanian, Sally Beer, Marina A Soltan, David R Thickett, Rory Fairhead and 4 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07432061 (Prediction of Infectious Diseases in LMICs Using Electronic Health Record Data), which is not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT07432061 completednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Prediction of Infectious Diseases in LMICs Using Electronic Health Record Data

TypeobservationalSponsorMahidol UniversityRan2024 to 2025Enrolled1,000ConditionsDengue Fever, Electronic Health Records, PredictionArmsNo intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew A S SoltanJohn Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: andrew.soltan@cardiov.ox.ac.uk.
Jenny YangInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ravi PattanshettyEmergency Medicine Research Oxford, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Alex NovakEmergency Medicine Research Oxford, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Yang YangInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Omid RohanianInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sally BeerEmergency Medicine Research Oxford, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Marina A SoltanThe Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK; Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
David R ThickettThe Queen Elizabeth Hospital, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK; Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Rory FairheadMedical School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Tingting ZhuInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David W EyreJohn Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK; Big Data Institute, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, University of Oxford and Public Health England, Oxford, UK.
David A CliftonInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
CURIAL Translational Collaborative
University of Oxford · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUncertainty in patients' COVID-19 status contributes to treatment delays, nosocomial transmission, and operational pressures in hospitals. However, the typical turnaround time for laboratory PCR remains 12-24 h and lateral flow devices (LFDs) have limited sensitivity. Previously, we have shown that artificial intelligence-driven triage (CURIAL-1.0) can provide rapid COVID-19 screening using clinical data routinely available within 1 h of arrival to hospital. Here, we aimed to improve the time from arrival to the emergency department to the availability of a result, do external and prospective validation, and deploy a novel laboratory-free screening tool in a UK emergency department.

methodsWe optimised our previous model, removing less informative predictors to improve generalisability and speed, developing the CURIAL-Lab model with vital signs and readily available blood tests (full blood count [FBC]; urea, creatinine, and electrolytes; liver function tests; and C-reactive protein) and the CURIAL-Rapide model with vital signs and FBC alone. Models were validated externally for emergency admissions to University Hospitals Birmingham, Bedfordshire Hospitals, and Portsmouth Hospitals University National Health Service (NHS) trusts, and prospectively at Oxford University Hospitals, by comparison with PCR testing. Next, we compared model performance directly against LFDs and evaluated a combined pathway that triaged patients who had either a positive CURIAL model result or a positive LFD to a COVID-19-suspected clinical area. Lastly, we deployed CURIAL-Rapide alongside an approved point-of-care FBC analyser to provide laboratory-free COVID-19 screening at the John Radcliffe Hospital (Oxford, UK). Our primary improvement outcome was time-to-result, and our performance measures were sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

findings72 223 patients met eligibility criteria across the four validating hospital groups, in a total validation period spanning Dec 1, 2019, to March 31, 2021. CURIAL-Lab and CURIAL-Rapide performed consistently across trusts (AUROC range 0·858-0·881, 95% CI 0·838-0·912, for CURIAL-Lab and 0·836-0·854, 0·814-0·889, for CURIAL-Rapide), achieving highest sensitivity at Portsmouth Hospitals (84·1%, Wilson's 95% CI 82·5-85·7, for CURIAL-Lab and 83·5%, 81·8-85·1, for CURIAL-Rapide) at specificities of 71·3% (70·9-71·8) for CURIAL-Lab and 63·6% (63·1-64·1) for CURIAL-Rapide. When combined with LFDs, model predictions improved triage sensitivity from 56·9% (51·7-62·0) for LFDs alone to 85·6% with CURIAL-Lab (81·6-88·9; AUROC 0·925) and 88·2% with CURIAL-Rapide (84·4-91·1; AUROC 0·919), thereby reducing missed COVID-19 cases by 65% with CURIAL-Lab and 72% with CURIAL-Rapide. For the prospective deployment of CURIAL-Rapide, 520 patients were enrolled for point-of-care FBC analysis between Feb 18 and May 10, 2021, of whom 436 received confirmatory PCR testing and ten (2·3%) tested positive. Median time from arrival to a CURIAL-Rapide result was 45 min (IQR 32-64), 16 min (26·3%) sooner than with LFDs (61 min, 37-99; log-rank p<0·0001), and 6 h 52 min (90·2%) sooner than with PCR (7 h 37 min, 6 h 5 min to 15 h 39 min; p<0·0001). Classification performance was high, with sensitivity of 87·5% (95% CI 52·9-97·8), specificity of 85·4% (81·3-88·7), and negative predictive value of 99·7% (98·2-99·9). CURIAL-Rapide correctly excluded infection for 31 (58·5%) of 53 patients who were triaged by a physician to a COVID-19-suspected area but went on to test negative by PCR.

interpretationOur findings show the generalisability, performance, and real-world operational benefits of artificial intelligence-driven screening for COVID-19 over standard-of-care in emergency departments. CURIAL-Rapide provided rapid, laboratory-free screening when used with near-patient FBC analysis, and was able to reduce the number of patients who tested negative for COVID-19 but were triaged to COVID-19-suspected areas.

fundingThe Wellcome Trust, University of Oxford Medical and Life Sciences Translational Fund.

Indexed as

COVID-19TriageArtificial IntelligenceHumansSARS-CoV-2State Medicine

Identifiers

PMID35279399
PMCPMC8906813
OpenAlexW4220924972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.