Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35733074›Full record

ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2022

Stratification of patients admitted for SARS-CoV2 infection: prognostic scores in the first and second wave of the pandemic.

F Innocenti, A De Paris, A Lagomarsini, L Pelagatti, L Casalini, A Gianno, M Montuori, P Bernardini, F Caldi, I Tassinari and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. [Performance of prognostic scores during the first and second waves of COVID-19 pneumonia]Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Medicas (Cordoba, Argentina) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

11 authors.

F InnocentiHigh-Dependency Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Lg. Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Firenze, Italy. innocenti.fra66@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7805-7619
A De ParisHigh-Dependency Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Lg. Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Firenze, Italy.
A LagomarsiniHigh-Dependency Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Lg. Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Firenze, Italy.
L PelagattiHigh-Dependency Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Lg. Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Firenze, Italy.
L CasaliniHigh-Dependency Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Lg. Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Firenze, Italy.
A GiannoHigh-Dependency Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Lg. Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Firenze, Italy.
M MontuoriHigh-Dependency Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Lg. Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Firenze, Italy.
P BernardiniHigh-Dependency Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Lg. Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Firenze, Italy.
F CaldiHigh-Dependency Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Lg. Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Firenze, Italy.
I TassinariHigh-Dependency Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Lg. Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Firenze, Italy.
R PiniHigh-Dependency Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Careggi University Hospital, Lg. Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Firenze, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To test the prognostic performance of different scores, both specifically designed for patients with COVID-19 and generic, in predicting in-hospital mortality and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV). We retrospectively collected clinical data of patients admitted to the Emergency Department of the University Hospital AOU Careggi, Florence, Italy, between February 2020 and January 2021, with a confirmed infection by SARS-CoV2. We calculated the following scores: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, CALL score, 4C Mortality score, QUICK score, CURB-65 and MuLBSTA score. The end-points were in-hospital mortality and the need for MV. We included 1208 patients, mean age 60 ± 17 years, 57% male sex. Compared to survivors, non-survivors showed significantly higher values of all the prognostic scores (4C: 13 [10-15] vs 8 [4-10]; CALL: 11 [10-12] vs 9 [7-11]; QUICK: 4 [1-6] vs 0 [0-3]; SOFA: 5 [4-6] vs 4 [4-5]; CURB: 2 [1-3] vs 1 [0-1]; MuLBSTA: 11 [9-13] vs 9 [7-11], all p < 0.001). Discriminative ability evaluated by the Receiver Operating Curve analysis showed the following values of the Area under the Curve: 0.83 for 4C, 0.74 for CALL, 0.70 for QUICK, 0.68 for SOFA, 0.76 for CURB and 0.64 for MuLBSTA. The mortality rate significantly increased in increasing quartiles of 4C and CALL score (respectively, 2, 8, 24 and 54% for the 4C score and 1, 17, 33 and 68% for the CALL score, both p < 0.001). 4C and CALL score allowed an early and good prognostic stratification of patients admitted for pneumonia induced by SARS-CoV2.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsAdultAgedFemaleHospital MortalityHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRetrospective StudiesRNA, ViralROC CurveSARS-CoV-2RNA, ViralCOVID-19Mortality ratePrognostic scoresRespiratory failure

Identifiers

PMID35733074
PMCPMC9216296

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.