ArticlePloS one2023
External validation of geriatric influenza death score: A multicenter study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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.
- External validation of geriatric influenza death score: a prospective validation study.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Geriatric Influenza Death (GID) score was developed to help decision making in older patients with influenza in the emergency department (ED), but external validation is unavailable. Thus, we conducted a study was to fill the data gap. We recruited all older patients (≥65 years) who visited the ED of three hospitals between 2009 and 2018. Demographic data and clinical characteristics were retrospectively collected. Discrimination, goodness of fit, and performance of the GID score were evaluated. Of the 5,508 patients (121 died) with influenza, the mean age was 76.6±7.4 (standard deviation) years, and 49.3% were males. The GID score was higher in the mortality group (1.7±1.1 vs. 0.8±0.8, p <0.01). With 0 as the reference, the odds ratio for morality with score of 1, 2 and ≥3 was 3.08 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.66-5.71), 6.69 (95% CI: 3.52-12.71), and 23.68 (95% CI: 11.95-46.93), respectively. The area under the curve was 0.722 (95% CI: 0.677-0.766), and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test was 1.000. The GID score had excellent negative predictive values with different cut-offs. The GID score had good external validity, and further studies are warranted for wider application.
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.