ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
Improving Discrimination in Predicting Level of Care Needed for Patients Admitted with Pneumonia.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Promise of Electronic Health Records to Inform Triage Decisions in Pneumonia.Journal of general internal medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious risk stratification scores are used to predict outcomes among patients with pneumonia. We have developed a novel model that predicts the risk of death or intensive care unit transfer in internal medicine.
objectiveTo compare the ability of two prediction models to predict clinical outcomes in patients admitted for pneumonia, using information available at the time of admission.
designComparison of two prediction models.
participants3856 pneumonia admissions to the internal medicine service of a tertiary medical center. MAIN MEASURES: We compared the ability of two scores to predict in-hospital mortality and escalation of care (e.g., to the intensive care unit) among patients admitted for pneumonia. One was the CURB-65 score, which is currently in use at our hospital. The other score was one we developed, based on the Elixhauser case mix adjustment model with additional data, such as vital signs and laboratory values. KEY
results11.8% of patients died in-hospital and 17.7% required an escalation of care. The most common CURB-65 score was 2 (44%), the lowest CURB-65 score ordinarily requiring admission. Our risk prediction score was better than CURB-65 at predicting mortality (c-statistic 0.846 vs. 0.724) and escalation (0.757 vs. 0.633). Our score was able to discriminate among patients classified as similar-risk by the CURB-65 score: of the 1681 patients with a (medium-risk) CURB-65 score of 2, our model placed 180 (11%) into the lowest-risk quintile of patients, and 309 (18%) into the highest-risk quintile.
conclusionsOur risk stratification tool is calculable with information available in the electronic medical record of most hospitals. The new score was much better able to predict the outcomes of in-hospital mortality and escalation of care among patients admitted for pneumonia, compared to CURB-65.
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.