ArticleHeliyon2023
COVID-19: An evaluation of predictive scoring systems in South Africa.
Article in Heliyon, 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.
- Severity Scores in SARS-CoV-2 Infection-A Comprehensive Bibliometric Review and Visualization Analysis.Epidemiologia (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evaluating the CURB-65 score for in-hospital mortality prediction in COVID-19 patients: insights into dysglycaemia.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- Outcomes of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 at the University Teaching Hospital of Butare in Rwanda and validation of the Universal Vital Assessment (UVA) mortality risk score.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: | The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2, has resulted in more than 700 million cases worldwide. Sepsis and pneumonia severity scores assist in risk assessment of critical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. This allows healthcare workers to triage patients, by using clinical parameters and limited special investigations, thus offering the most appropriate level of care. Methods: | A retrospective cohort study of 605 adult patients hospitalised with moderate to severe COVID-19, at a tertiary state hospital in South Africa. Evaluating the utility of the CURB65, NEWS2 and ISARIC-4C Mortality Score, in predicting critical outcomes, using clinical characteristics on admission. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation, and intensive care unit admission (ICU). Performance of severity scores and risk factors was assessed by area under the receiver operator characteristics (AUROC) analysis and logistic regression. Findings |: A total of 605 records were used, 129 (21 %) non-survivors, 101 (17 %) ICU admissions and 77 (13 %) requiring invasive ventilation. Greater odds of mortality was associated with moderate and severe risk groups of the CURB65, ISARIC-4C and NEWS2 score. Mortality AUROC curve analysis for the CURB65 score was 0·76 (95 % CI: 0·71-0·8), 0·77 (95 % CI: 0·73-0·81) for the ISARIC-4C and 0·77 (95 % CI: 0·73-0·82) for the NEWS2 score. The CURB65 score had a sensitivity of 86 % with 12·8 % mortality, ISARIC-4C score a sensitivity of 87·6 % with 8 % mortality and NEWS2 score a sensitivity of 92·2 % with 8·6 % mortality. Interpretation |: In 605 hospitalised patients with moderate to severe COVID-19, predominantly infected by the ancestral strain, good performance of the NEWS2 and ISARIC-4C score in predicting in-hospital mortality was noted. The CURB65 score had a high mortality rate in its low-risk group suggesting unexplained risk factors, not accounted for in the score, thus limiting its utility in the South African setting.
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.