ArticleColombia medica (Cali, Colombia)
Community-acquired pneumonia: comparison of three mortality prediction scores in the emergency department.
Article in Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tracking the evolution of biomarker efficacy in SARS-CoV-2: a global meta-analyses series.Respiratory research · 2026Article
- Comparative Effectiveness of CURB-65 and qSOFA Scores in Predicting Pneumonia Outcomes: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Editorial Commentary: Community-acquired pneumonia, comparison of three mortality prediction scores in the emergency department.Colombia medica (Cali, Colombia)Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: qSOFA is a score to identify patients with suspected infection and risk of complications. Its criteria are like those evaluated in prognostic scores for pneumonia (CRB-65 - CURB-65), but it is not clear which is best for predicting mortality and admission to the ICU. Objective: Compare three scores (CURB-65, CRB-65 and qSOFA) to determine the best tool to identify emergency department patients with pneumonia at increased risk of mortality or intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Methods: Secondary analysis of three prospective cohorts of patients hospitalized with diagnosis of pneumonia in five Colombian hospitals. Validation and comparison of the score´s accuracies were performed by means of discrimination and calibration measures. Results: Cohorts 1, 2 and 3 included 158, 745 and 207 patients, with mortality rates of 32.3%, 17.2% and 18.4%, and admission to ICU was required for 52.5%, 43.5% and 25.6%, respectively. The best AUC-ROC for mortality was for CURB-65 in cohort 3 (AUC-ROC=0.67). The calibration was adequate (p>0.05) for the three scores. Conclusions: None of these scores proved to be an appropriate predictor for mortality and admission to the ICU. Furthermore, the CRB 65 exhibited the lowest discriminative ability.
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.