ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Evaluation of physiological severity scores for predicting COVID-19 disease progression: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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 predictive value of the National Early Warning Score for mortality and independent prognostic factors in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A retrospective cohort study.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic indeed strains healthcare systems worldwide, resulting in a surge of patients with severe conditions. Numerous physiological severity scores have been assigned to assess critical conditions; however, a comprehensive comparison of these scoring systems remains lacking. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the performance of the severity scores upon admission in predicting the progression of COVID-19 patients to a severe condition within 14 days after hospitalization.
methodsNon-critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the Faculty of Medicine, Vajira Hospital, between 1 January 2021 and 30 June 2021, were assessed. We compared the discriminated ability of physiological severity scores in predicting disease progression to critical conditions using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).
resultsTotally, 348 non-critically ill COVID-19 patients were included. Of these, 60 patients (17.2%) progressed to severe conditions within 14 days after hospitalization. The National Early Warning Score 2 with age and body mass index (NEWS2 Plus) was the most outperformed than the National Early Warning Score (NEWS), the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), the Hamilton Early Warning Score (HEWS), the Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS), and the quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) scores, for predicting deterioration to severe conditions [AUC 0.77 (95% CI; 0.72-0.83)]. The NEWS2 Plus with a cutoff point of five exhibited high sensitivity (83.3%) and high negative predictive value (NPV) of 94.7%.
conclusionsNEWS2 Plus score can enhance its utility for triage of COVID-19 patients' clinical status upon admission and guide appropriate management decisions for resource allocation.
trial registrationTCTR20241026001, registered on 26 October 2024.
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.