Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38151278›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

External validation of the QCovid 2 and 3 risk prediction algorithms for risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality in adults: a national cohort study in Scotland.

Steven Kerr, Tristan Millington, Igor Rudan, Colin McCowan, Holly Tibble, Karen Jeffrey, Adeniyi Francis Fagbamigbe, Colin R Simpson, Chris Robertson, Julia Hippisley-Cox and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Steven KerrUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Tristan MillingtonUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0260-0515
Igor RudanUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Colin McCowanSchool of Medicine, University of St. Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Holly TibbleUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7169-4087
Karen JeffreyUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0061-6089
Adeniyi Francis FagbamigbeInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Colin R SimpsonFaculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
Chris RobertsonDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
Julia Hippisley-CoxNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Aziz SheikhUsher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK aziz.sheikh@ed.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_19004Medical Research Council MC_PC_19075Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe QCovid 2 and 3 algorithms are risk prediction tools developed during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic that can be used to predict the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality, taking vaccination status into account. In this study, we assess their performance in Scotland.

methodsWe used the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 national data platform consisting of individual-level data for the population of Scotland (5.4 million residents). Primary care data were linked to reverse-transcription PCR virology testing, hospitalisation and mortality data. We assessed the discrimination and calibration of the QCovid 2 and 3 algorithms in predicting COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths between 8 December 2020 and 15 June 2021.

resultsOur validation dataset comprised 465 058 individuals, aged 19-100. We found the following performance metrics (95% CIs) for QCovid 2 and 3: Harrell's C 0.84 (0.82 to 0.86) for hospitalisation, and 0.92 (0.90 to 0.94) for death, observed-expected ratio of 0.24 for hospitalisation and 0.26 for death (ie, both the number of hospitalisations and the number of deaths were overestimated), and a Brier score of 0.0009 (0.00084 to 0.00096) for hospitalisation and 0.00036 (0.00032 to 0.0004) for death.

conclusionsWe found good discrimination of the QCovid 2 and 3 algorithms in Scotland, although performance was worse in higher age groups. Both the number of hospitalisations and the number of deaths were overestimated.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultAlgorithmsCohort StudiesHospitalizationHumansPandemicsScotlandEpidemiologyHealth informaticsRESPIRATORY MEDICINE (see Thoracic Medicine)

Identifiers

PMID38151278
PMCPMC10753764

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.