ArticleEuropean journal of internal medicine2022
External validation of risk scores to predict in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized due to coronavirus disease 2019.
Article in European journal of internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic models in COVID-19 infection that predict severity: a systematic review.European journal of epidemiology · 2023Pooled it
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
18 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents an urgent threat to global health. Prediction models that accurately estimate mortality risk in hospitalized patients could assist medical staff in treatment and allocating limited resources.
aimsTo externally validate two promising previously published risk scores that predict in-hospital mortality among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
methodsTwo prospective cohorts were available; a cohort of 1028 patients admitted to one of nine hospitals in Lombardy, Italy (the Lombardy cohort) and a cohort of 432 patients admitted to a hospital in Leiden, the Netherlands (the Leiden cohort). The endpoint was in-hospital mortality. All patients were adult and tested COVID-19 PCR-positive. Model discrimination and calibration were assessed.
resultsThe C-statistic of the 4C mortality score was good in the Lombardy cohort (0.85, 95CI: 0.82-0.89) and in the Leiden cohort (0.87, 95CI: 0.80-0.94). Model calibration was acceptable in the Lombardy cohort but poor in the Leiden cohort due to the model systematically overpredicting the mortality risk for all patients. The C-statistic of the CURB-65 score was good in the Lombardy cohort (0.80, 95CI: 0.75-0.85) and in the Leiden cohort (0.82, 95CI: 0.76-0.88). The mortality rate in the CURB-65 development cohort was much lower than the mortality rate in the Lombardy cohort. A similar but less pronounced trend was found for patients in the Leiden cohort.
conclusionAlthough performances did not differ greatly, the 4C mortality score showed the best performance. However, because of quickly changing circumstances, model recalibration may be necessary before using the 4C mortality score.
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.