Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35499040›Full record

ArticleColombia medica (Cali, Colombia)

Community-acquired pneumonia: comparison of three mortality prediction scores in the emergency department.

Carolina Hincapié, Johana Ascuntar, Alba León, Fabián Jaimes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Carolina HincapiéUniversidad de Antioquia; GRAEPIC - Clinical Epidemiology Academic Group (Grupo Académico de Epidemiología Clínica); Medellín, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8582-1614
Johana AscuntarUniversidad de Antioquia; GRAEPIC - Clinical Epidemiology Academic Group (Grupo Académico de Epidemiología Clínica); Medellín, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6927-7030
Alba LeónUniversidad de Antioquia; GRAEPIC - Clinical Epidemiology Academic Group (Grupo Académico de Epidemiología Clínica); Medellín, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9233-2330
Fabián JaimesUniversidad de Antioquia; GRAEPIC - Clinical Epidemiology Academic Group (Grupo Académico de Epidemiología Clínica); Medellín, Colombia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Community-Acquired InfectionsPneumoniaEmergency Service, HospitalHumansIntensive Care UnitsProspective Studiesclinical decision rulesmortalitypneumoniaSepsis

Identifiers

PMID35499040
PMCPMC9015018

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.