ArticleWorld journal of emergency medicine2022
Exploratory COVID-19 death risk score based on basic laboratory tests and physiological clinical measurements.
Article in World journal of emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the event of a sudden shortage of medical resources, a rapid, simple, and accurate prediction model is essential for the 30-day mortality rate of patients with COVID-19.
methodsThis retrospective study compared the characteristics of the survivals and non-survivals of 278 patients with COVID-19. Logistic regression analysis was performed to obtain the "COVID-19 death risk score" (CDRS) model. Using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, discrimination and calibration were assessed. Internal validation was conducted using a regular bootstrap method.
resultsA total of 63 (22.66%) of 278 included patients died. The logistic regression analysis revealed that high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP; odds ratio [OR]=1.018), D-dimer (OR=1.101), and respiratory rate (RR; OR=1.185) were independently associated with 30-day mortality. CDRS was calculated as follows: CDRS=-10.245+(0.022×hsCRP)+(0.172×D-dimer)+(0.203×RR). CDRS had the same predictive effect as the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) and "confusion, uremia, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and age over 65 years" (CURB-65) scores, with AUROCs of 0.984 for CDRS, 0.975 for SOFA, and 0.971 for CURB-65, respectively. And CDRS showed good calibration. The AUROC through internal validations was 0.980 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.965-0.995). Regarding the clinical value, the decision curve analysis of CDRS showed a net value similar to that of CURB-65 in this cohort.
conclusionCDRS is a novel, efficient and accurate prediction model for the early identification of COVID-19 patients with poor outcomes. Although it is not as advanced as the other models, CDRS had a similar performance to that of SOFA and CURB-65.
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.