ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluating the predictive performance of PIRO score against six clinical prediction scores for COVID-19 outcomes in the emergency department.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to the development of numerous prognostic models for patient assessment. However, the potential utility of the predisposition, insult/infection, response, organ dysfunction (PIRO) score in evaluating COVID-19 severity and outcomes remains unexplored, presenting a gap in current research. A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 374 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 who were admitted to the emergency department of Beijing Youan Hospital. Demographic data, treatment regimens, and seven prognostic scoring systems, including PIRO, were evaluated. To evaluate the models' prognostic accuracy for 28-day mortality, area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) analysis was employed. Comparative performance between scoring systems was quantified using the DeLong method for paired ROC curves. Of the 374 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 120 (32.1%) died within 28 day of hospitalization. Significant disparities were observed between survivors and non-survivors regarding age, laboratory parameters, and clinical scores. Analysis of patient distribution and mortality rates across different score ranges revealed a positive correlation between score magnitude and 28-day mortality. The PIRO score demonstrated superior prognostic capability, yielding an AUC of 0.898 (95% CI 0.866-0.929). The quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score followed closely (AUC 0.882, 95% CI 0.849-0.914). Both critical illness risk score (COVID-GRAM) and national early warning score 2 (NEWS2) exhibited AUCs exceeding 0.85 (COVID-GRAM 0.854, 95% CI 0.812-0.895; NEWS2: 0.851, 95% CI 0.813-0.889). DeLong test analysis revealed statistically significant differences in AUC between PIRO and confusion, urea, respiration, systolic pressure, age ≥ 65 (CURB-65), pneumonia severity index (PSI), COVID-GRAM, rapid acute physiology score (RAPS), and NEWS2 (all p < 0.05). Analysis revealed the PIRO scoring system as a robust predictor of 28-day mortality among COVID-19 cases presenting to the emergency setting, offering potential refinement of risk stratification and clinical management strategies.
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.