ArticleBiomedicines2024
External Validation of the Predictive Accuracy of Clinical and Immunological Scores in COVID-19 Outcomes in a Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Biomedicines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThe COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated the development of reliable prognostic tools to predict patient outcomes and guide clinical decisions. This study evaluates the predictive utility of several clinical scores-PAINT, ISARIC4C, CHIS, COVID-GRAM, SOFA, and CURB-65-for in-hospital mortality among COVID-19 patients, comparing their effectiveness at admission and seven days post-symptom onset.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study conducted at the Clinical Emergency Hospital Pius Brînzeu in Timișoara, adult patients hospitalized with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. The study was approved by the Local Ethics Committee, adhering to GDPR and other regulatory standards. Prognostic scores were calculated using patient data at admission and Day 7. Statistical analyses included ROC curves, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and multivariate Cox regression.
resultsThe study comprised 269 patients, with a notable distinction in outcomes between survivors and non-survivors. Non-survivors were older (mean age 62.12 years) and exhibited higher comorbidity rates, such as diabetes (55.56% vs. 31.06%) and cardiovascular diseases (48.15% vs. 29.81%). Prognostic scores were significantly higher among non-survivors at both time points, with PAINT and ISARIC4C showing particularly strong predictive performances. The AUROC for PAINT increased from 0.759 at admission to 0.811 by Day 7, while ISARIC4C demonstrated an AUROC of 0.776 at admission and 0.798 by Day 7. Multivariate Cox regression indicated that a PAINT score above 8.10 by Day 7 was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) of 4.9 (95% CI: 3.12-7.72) for mortality.
conclusionsThe study confirms the strong predictive value of the PAINT, ISARIC4C, CHIS, COVID-GRAM, SOFA, and CURB-65 scores in determining mortality risk among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. These scores can significantly aid clinicians in early-risk stratification and resource prioritization, potentially enhancing patient management and outcomes in acute care settings.
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.