SynthesisInfection2026
Prognostic accuracy of severity grading score and severity scoring index for predicting severe outcomes in Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Infection, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEarly risk stratification is critical in Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever. We compared the prognostic accuracy of the Severity Grading Score and the Severity Scoring Index for predicting severe outcomes and mortality in laboratory-confirmed Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prognostic accuracy studies according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were searched from inception to November 7, 2025. Observational studies evaluating Severity Grading Score and/or Severity Scoring Index and reporting extractable prognostic accuracy data were included. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) were estimated using bivariate random-effects models at prespecified cutoffs for mortality prediction (Severity Grading Score ≥ 9; Severity Scoring Index ≥10). Risk of bias was assessed using QUADAS-2.
resultsFourteen studies met inclusion criteria. Ten studies evaluating Severity Grading Score (n = 1521) and four evaluating Severity Scoring Index (n = 478) were included in quantitative synthesis for mortality. Severity Grading Score showed very high specificity (0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.00) but limited sensitivity (0.47, 95% CI 0.27-0.69), yielding a pooled DOR of 94.8. Severity Scoring Index demonstrated higher sensitivity (0.78, 95% CI 0.63-0.88) with high specificity (0.97, 95% CI 0.91-0.99) and a pooled DOR of 100.7. Using an observed mortality prevalence of ~9%, Severity Grading Score provided strong rule-in capacity, whereas Severity Scoring Index offered superior rule-out performance.
conclusionsBoth scores are clinically useful prognostic tools in Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, but with distinct roles. Severity Grading Score is better suited for confirming high-risk status, while Severity Scoring Index performs better as an early triage tool to identify patients at risk of death. Prospective head-to-head validation with standardized outcomes is warranted to guide their incorporation into clinical triage protocols and management guidelines.
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.