ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2023
Development and external validation of the DOAT and DOATS scores: simple decision support tools to identify disease progression among nonelderly patients with mild/moderate COVID-19.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Real-world clinical outcomes of treatment with molnupiravir for patients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 during the Omicron variant pandemic.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical effect of early administration of tocilizumab following the initiation of corticosteroid therapy for patients with COVID-19.Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy · 2022Article
- Real-world clinical outcomes of treatment with casirivimab-imdevimab among patients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 during the Delta variant pandemic.International journal of medical sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
65 authors at 19 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDuring the fifth wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Japan, which took place between June and September 2021, a significant number of COVID-19 cases with deterioration occurred in unvaccinated individuals < 65 years old. However, the risk factors for COVID-19 deterioration in this specific population have not yet been determined. This study developed a prediction method to identify COVID-19 patients < 65 years old who are at a high risk of deterioration.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed data from 1,675 patients < 65 years old who were admitted to acute care institutions in Fukushima with mild-to-moderate-1 COVID-19 based on the Japanese disease severity criteria prior to the fifth wave. For validation, 324 similar patients were enrolled from 3 hospitals in Yamagata. Logistic regression analyses using cluster-robust variance estimation were used to determine predictors of disease deterioration, followed by creation of risk prediction scores. Disease deterioration was defined as the initiation of medication for COVID-19, oxygen inhalation, or mechanical ventilation starting one day or later after admission.
resultsThe patients whose condition deteriorated (8.6%) tended to be older, male, have histories of smoking, and have high body temperatures, low oxygen saturation values, and comorbidities, such as diabetes/obesity and hypertension. Stepwise variable selection using logistic regression to predict COVID-19 deterioration retained comorbidities of diabetes/obesity (DO), age (A), body temperature (T), and oxygen saturation (S). Two predictive scores were created based on the optimism-corrected regression coefficients: the DOATS score, including all of the above risk factors, and the DOAT score, which was the DOATS score without oxygen saturation. In the original cohort, the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCs) of the DOATS and DOAT scores were 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.85) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.84), respectively. In the validation cohort, the AUROCs for each score were both 0.76 (95% CI 0.69-0.83), and the calibration slopes were both 0.80. A decision curve analysis confirmed the clinical practicability of both scores in the validation cohort.
conclusionsWe established two prediction scores that can quickly evaluate the risk of COVID-19 deterioration in mild/moderate patients < 65 years old.
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.