Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39539877›Full record

ReviewCureus2024

Comparative Effectiveness of CURB-65 and qSOFA Scores in Predicting Pneumonia Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Abdulhadi Gelaidan, Mohanad Almaimani, Yara A Alorfi, Anas Alqahtani, Nawaf G Alaklabi, Shahad M Alshamrani, Raneem Rambo, Joury A Mujahed, Ruba Y Alsulami, Mohammed Namenkani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Abdulhadi GelaidanInternal Medicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, SAU.
Mohanad AlmaimaniInternal Medicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, SAU.
Yara A AlorfiMedicine and Surgery, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, SAU.
Anas AlqahtaniMedicine and Surgery, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, SAU.
Nawaf G AlaklabiMedicine and Surgery, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, SAU.
Shahad M AlshamraniMedicine and Surgery, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, SAU.
Raneem RamboMedicine and Surgery, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, SAU.
Joury A MujahedMedicine and Surgery, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, SAU.
Ruba Y AlsulamiMedicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, SAU.
Mohammed NamenkaniMedicine, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, SAU.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pneumonia is a leading cause of hospitalization and mortality worldwide, often progressing to sepsis, making early accurate severity assessment crucial for effective clinical decision-making. This systematic review compares the CURB-65 (confusion, urea, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and age ≥65 years) and qSOFA scoring systems in predicting pneumonia outcomes, including short-term mortality and ICU admission, to provide evidence-based recommendations for their clinical application. A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and BMJ Journals, using specific keywords related to pneumonia and the scoring systems. Eligible studies included adult patients diagnosed with community-acquired, hospital-acquired, or healthcare-associated pneumonia (HAP), where CURB-65 or qSOFA scores were calculated within 24 hours of admission. Data extraction focused on study characteristics, patient demographics, and outcome measures, with quantitative synthesis comparing the predictive performance of the two scores. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve (AUC) values were assessed, and potential sources of heterogeneity and publication bias were examined. The analysis included 22 studies with a total of 25,846 participants, revealing varying predictive accuracy across different settings. CURB-65 demonstrated superior sensitivity (76.52%) and AUC (0.747) for mortality prediction, making it a more reliable tool for identifying high-risk pneumonia patients who require intensive management. Conversely, qSOFA exhibited superior specificity (86.08%) and better performance in predicting ICU admissions, with an AUC of 0.714, highlighting its utility in identifying patients who may need critical care interventions. This systematic review underscores the strengths and limitations of both CURB-65 and qSOFA in predicting pneumonia outcomes. While CURB-65 is more effective for mortality prediction, qSOFA excels in predicting ICU admissions. A combined approach leveraging both scoring systems could enhance patient assessment and management. Further research with larger, prospective studies is recommended to validate these findings and optimize the clinical use of CURB-65 and qSOFA in pneumonia management.

Indexed as

evidence-based recommendationsicu admissionpneumonia severity assessmentpredictionsensitivity and specificitysepsisshort-term mortality

Identifiers

PMID39539877
PMCPMC11557729

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.