ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Assessment of disease severity in hospitalized community-acquired pneumonia by the use of validated scoring systems.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. 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.
- A combined model based on lactate clearance rate and SOFA score in prognostic assessment of patients with severe pneumonia.BMC immunology · 2026Article
- A rapid surveillance of pneumonia in hospitalized patients: an opportunity for intervention.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026Article
- A hybrid dense convolutional network and fuzzy inference system for pneumonia diagnosis with dynamic symptom tracking.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeverity assessment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is essential for many purposes. Among these are the microbiological confirmation strategy and choice of empirical antimicrobial therapy. However, many severity assessment systems have been developed to aid clinicians to reach reliable predictions of severe outcomes.
methodsWe aimed to apply nine disease severity assessment scoring systems to a large 2016 to 2021 CAP cohort in order to achieve test sensitivity, specificity and predictive values. We used intra-hospital all-cause mortality and the need for intensive care admission as outcomes. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to display test performance.
resultsA total of 1.112 CAP episodes were included in the analysis, of which 91.4% were radiologically, and 43.7% were microbiologically confirmed. When intra-hospital all-cause mortality was set as outcome, tests designed for CAP severity assessment, like PSI, and CURB65 outperformed the more generic systems like NEWS2, qSOFA, SIRS and CRB65. Designated tests for CAP (PSI, IDSA/ATS and CURB65) and overall critical illness (SOFA) displayed acceptable performances as compared to non-specific tests. Comparable results were gained when intensive care admission was set as outcome. The area under the receiving operating curve was 0.948, 0.879, 0.855 and 0.726 for the SOFA, PSI, IDSA/ATS and CURB65 scoring systems, respectively.
conclusionCAP severity assessment remains important. Designated CAP severity assessment tools outperformed generic tests.
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.