ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Multicenter validation of a simple clinical risk score for early prediction of severe dengue among adults in Thailand.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDengue remains a major public health challenge in Thailand. Although only a minority of patients progress to severe dengue, the condition is potentially life-threatening and requires early recognition. Simple clinical prediction tools may support early risk stratification in routine care, particularly in resource-limited settings. This study aimed to externally validate a simple clinical risk score for predicting severe dengue among adult patients using multicenter hospital data in Thailand.
methodsA retrospective multicenter validation study was conducted using clinical data from six hospitals in Thailand (2019-2022). Model discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AuROC). Patients were categorized into three predefined risk groups. Likelihood ratios were calculated to evaluate clinical utility across risk strata. Calibration was assessed using calibration plots, slope, and intercept.
resultsThe model demonstrated good discriminative performance, with an AuROC of 0.83 (95% CI 0.77-0.90) in the validation cohort, compared with 0.88 in the development cohort (p-value = 0.249). Likelihood ratios indicated strong rule-in ability in the high-risk group (LR + = 52.02), while the low-risk group was associated with reduced probability of severe disease. Calibration was acceptable overall, although systematic underestimation was observed in higher-risk patients.
conclusionsThis simple clinical risk score demonstrated good and stable performance across diverse hospital settings. The model may support early in-hospital risk stratification and clinical monitoring decisions among adult dengue patients. Further prospective validation and recalibration studies are warranted. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.