ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2022
The predictive value of modified risk scores in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD: a retrospective cohort study.
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 5 papers, 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of prognostic scoring tools for ICU triage and mortality among patients in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Pooled it
- External validation of the International Early Warning Score in non-traumatic emergency department patients: a prospective cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Observational
- Physiological scoring systems for early identification of critically ill older adults in the emergency department: a prospective observational cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Observational
- Article
- Prognostic value of early warning scores in patients presenting to the emergency department with exacerbation of COPD.Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the performance of CREWS (Chronic Respiratory Early Warning Score), S-NEWS (Salford-National Early Warning Score), qNEWS (Quick National Early Warning Score), NEWS (National Early Warning Score), and qSOFA (Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) scores in predicting mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV) of patients presented with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). This retrospective cohort study was conducted in the emergency department of a tertiary hospital between January 1 and December 31, 2019. The patients with AECOPD and aged ≥ 18 were included. Patients who were transferred from another center and whose data could not be reached were excluded. Demographic information, comorbid diseases, variables of the scores, laboratory results, and outcomes were recorded. A total of 575 consecutive patients were included. The 30-day mortality, ICU admission, and MV need rate were 5.7% (n = 33), 9.6% (n = 55), and 13.7% (n = 79), respectively. Each score had moderate-to-excellent performance in predicting MV need and ICU admission, while their performance in predicting mortality was poor. CREWS is the most successful score in predicting 30-day mortality (AUC 0.695), ICU admission (AUC 0.841), and MV need (AUC 0.924). ICU admission, age, and creatinine levels were associated with mortality (p < 0.05). All scores have better performance in predicting ICU admission and MV need than mortality. ICU admission, age, and creatinine levels may be the predictors of mortality among AECOPD patients.
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.