ArticleEmergency radiology2025
Prognostic validation of a simplified chest CT severity score in COVID-19 patients from resource-limited Gaza.
Article in Emergency radiology, 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.
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
purposeTo validate the Simplified Chest CT Severity Score (SCCTSS) for prognostic stratification of COVID-19 pneumonia in a resource-limited Gaza cohort and compare its diagnostic accuracy and interobserver reliability against the established Chest CT Score (CCTS). MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, 360 adult patients with RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 underwent non-contrast chest CT within 72 h of admission (September 2020-June 2022). SCCTSS assessed three parameters, opacity type, extent, and distribution, with scores ranging from 0 to 7 and classified into no involvement (0), mild (3), moderate (4-5), and severe (6-7) disease. CCTS scores ranged from 0 to 25 and were categorized as no involvement (0), mild (1-8), moderate (9-16), and severe (17-25). Interobserver agreement was measured by Cohen's kappa. Diagnostic accuracy for mortality prediction was evaluated via sensitivity, specificity, ROC curves, and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.
resultsSCCTSS demonstrated almost perfect interobserver reliability (κ = 0.883), comparable to CCTS (κ = 0.870). Mortality was significantly associated with higher SCCTSS categories; 58.5% of non-survivors had severe scores (6-7), compared to 3.7% of survivors (p < 0.001). At the optimal cutoff (≥ 3.5), SCCTSS sensitivity was 93.2%, specificity 90.1%, with AUC 0.933. CCTS (cutoff ≥ 8.5) showed 89.8% sensitivity, 93.4% specificity, and AUC 0.948. Kaplan-Meier analysis confirmed significantly reduced 30-day survival in patients with scores above these thresholds (p < 0.001).
conclusionsSCCTSS is a simple, reproducible, and effective CT scoring tool for COVID-19 prognostication, suitable for rapid risk stratification in resource-limited environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41107677What 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.