ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2026
Comparison of CURB-65 and qSOFA scores in predicting outcomes in community-acquired pneumonia.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with high hospitalization and death rates. Early and accurate assessment of disease severity in emergency settings is crucial for guiding treatment and reducing associated costs and mortality. The confusion, urea, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and age ≥ 65 (CURB-65) and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) scoring systems are commonly used tools for prognostication, each with unique strengths. This study aims to compare the predictive capabilities of CURB-65 and qSOFA for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mortality, and hospital stay duration among CAP patients. Methods: This cross-sectional, prospective study was conducted over a year at a tertiary hospital. Ninety-three adult CAP patients meeting the inclusion criteria were enrolled. Data on clinical presentation, CURB-65, and qSOFA scores were recorded upon emergency admission. Patients were followed until discharge or death. Statistical analyses, including chi-square tests and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves, were used to compare outcomes predicted by the two scoring systems. Discussion: Both scoring systems demonstrated utility in predicting adverse outcomes, with qSOFA outperforming CURB-65 for ICU admission (AUROC: 0.817 vs. 0.810). However, CURB-65 was superior in predicting mortality (AUROC: 0.582 vs. 0.535) and hospital stay duration (AUROC: 0.848 vs. 0.829). Positive CURB-65 and qSOFA scores correlated significantly with higher ICU admissions, mortality, and longer hospital stays. Clinical features and comorbidities, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes, were more prevalent in patients with higher scores. Conclusion: Both CURB-65 and qSOFA effectively predict ICU admission, mortality, and hospital stay duration in CAP patients. While qSOFA is more sensitive for ICU admission, CURB-65 provides better mortality and length-of-stay predictions, underscoring their complementary roles in clinical decision-making.
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.