Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37615346›Full record

ArticleeLife2023

Development and validation of COEWS (COVID-19 Early Warning Score) for hospitalized COVID-19 with laboratory features: A multicontinental retrospective study.

Riku Klén, Ivan A Huespe, Felipe Aníbal Gregalio, Antonio Lalueza Lalueza Blanco, Miguel Pedrera Jimenez, Noelia Garcia Barrio, Pascual Ruben Valdez, Matias A Mirofsky, Bruno Boietti, Ricardo Gómez-Huelgas and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. The SpOJournal of clinical medicine · 2024
    Article
  4. 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

14 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Riku Klén *Turku PET Centre, University of Turku and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-0982-8360
Ivan A Huespe *Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0003-3445-6981
Felipe Aníbal GregalioItalian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0003-3189-2382
Antonio Lalueza Lalueza Blanco12 de Octubre University Hospital, Research Institute of Hospital 12 de Octubre (imas+12), Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Miguel Pedrera Jimenez12 de Octubre University Hospital, Research Institute of Hospital 12 de Octubre (imas+12), Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Noelia Garcia Barrio12 de Octubre University Hospital, Research Institute of Hospital 12 de Octubre (imas+12), Complutense University, Madrid, Spain.
Pascual Ruben ValdezVélez Sarsfield Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Matias A MirofskyHospital Municipal de Agudos Dr Leónidas Lucero, Bahía Blanca, Argentina.
Bruno BoiettiItalian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Ricardo Gómez-HuelgasRegional University Hospital of Málaga, Biomedical Research Institute of Málaga (IBIMA), University of Malaga, Málaga, Spain.
José Manuel Casas-RojoInfanta Cristina University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
Juan Miguel Antón-SantosInfanta Cristina University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3443-1100
Javier Alberto PollanItalian Hospital of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
David Gómez-VarelaDivision of Pharmacology & Toxicology, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-2502-9419
Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires · ARResearch Institute Hospital 12 de Octubre · ESHospital Universitario Infanta Cristina · ESInstituto de Investigación Biomédica de Málaga · ESMondelēz International (India) · INUniversity of Turku · FIUniversity of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants with significant immune-evasiveness, the relaxation of measures for reducing the number of infections, the waning of immune protection (particularly in high-risk population groups), and the low uptake of new vaccine boosters, forecast new waves of hospitalizations and admission to intensive care units. There is an urgent need for easily implementable and clinically effective Early Warning Scores (EWSs) that can predict the risk of complications within the next 24-48 hr. Although EWSs have been used in the evaluation of COVID-19 patients, there are several clinical limitations to their use. Moreover, no models have been tested on geographically distinct populations or population groups with varying levels of immune protection. Methods: We developed and validated COVID-19 Early Warning Score (COEWS), an EWS that is automatically calculated solely from laboratory parameters that are widely available and affordable. We benchmarked COEWS against the widely used NEWS2. We also evaluated the predictive performance of vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Results: The variables of the COEWS predictive model were selected based on their predictive coefficients and on the wide availability of these laboratory variables. The final model included complete blood count, blood glucose, and oxygen saturation features. To make COEWS more actionable in real clinical situations, we transformed the predictive coefficients of the COEWS model into individual scores for each selected feature. The global score serves as an easy-to-calculate measure indicating the risk of a patient developing the combined outcome of mechanical ventilation or death within the next 48 hr.The discrimination in the external validation cohort was 0.743 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.703-0.784) for the COEWS score performed with coefficients and 0.700 (95% CI: 0.654-0.745) for the COEWS performed with scores. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Additionally, we observed that the AUROC of the NEWS2 was 0.677 (95% CI: 0.601-0.752) in vaccinated patients and 0.648 (95% CI: 0.608-0.689) in unvaccinated patients. Conclusions: The COEWS score predicts death or MV within the next 48 hr based on routine and widely available laboratory measurements. The extensive external validation, its high performance, its ease of use, and its positive benchmark in comparison with the widely used NEWS2 position COEWS as a new reference tool for assisting clinical decisions and improving patient care in the upcoming pandemic waves. Funding: University of Vienna.

Indexed as

COVID-19Early Warning ScoreHumansRetrospective StudiesSARS-CoV-2COVID-19early warning systemepidemiologyglobal healthmechanical ventilationmedicinepredictive modelSARS-CoV-2severity indexviruses

Identifiers

PMID37615346
PMCPMC10479961
OpenAlexW4386117093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.