Observational studyInternal and emergency medicine2023
Head-to-head comparison of six warning scores to predict mortality and clinical impairment in COVID-19 patients in emergency department.
Observational study in Internal and emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the predictive performance of PIRO score against six clinical prediction scores for COVID-19 outcomes in the emergency department.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Is it practical to incorporate point-of-care testing into clinical prediction models for emergency?Internal and emergency medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim was to evaluate the ability of six risk scores (4C, CURB65, SEIMC, mCHOSEN, QuickCSI, and NEWS2) to predict the outcome of patients with COVID-19 during the sixth pandemic wave in Spain. A retrospective observational study was performed to review the electronic medical records in patients ≥ 18 years of age who consulted consecutively in an emergency department with COVID-19 diagnosis throughout 2 months during the sixth pandemic wave. Clinical-epidemiological variables, comorbidities, and their respective outcomes, such as 30-day in-hospital mortality and clinical deterioration risk (a combined outcome considering: mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and/or 30-day in-hospital mortality), were calculated. The area under the curve for each risk score was calculated, and the resulting curves were compared by the Delong test, concluding with a decision curve analysis. A total of 626 patients (median age 79 years; 49.8% female) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two hundred and ninety-three patients (46.8%) had two or more comorbidities. Clinical deterioration risk criteria were present in 10.1% (63 cases), with a 30-day in-hospital mortality rate of 6.2% (39 cases). Comparison of the results showed that score 4C presented the best results for both outcome variables, with areas under the curve for mortality and clinical deterioration risk of 0.931 (95% CI 0.904-0.957) and 0.871 (95% CI 0.833-0.910) (both p < 0.001). The 4C Mortality Score proved to be the best score for predicting mortality or clinical deterioration risk among patients with COVID-19 attended in the emergency department in the following 30 days.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37493862What 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.