Background: In the COVID-19 pandemic, difficulties have been experienced in the provision of healthcare services because of excessive patient admissions to hospitals and emergency departments. It has become important to use clear and objective criteria for the early diagnosis of patients with high-risk classification and clinical worsening risk.
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic accuracy of CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM scores in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and to compare the scoring systems in terms of predicting in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit requirement.
Methods: The files of all COVID-19 patients over the age of 18 who were admitted to the emergency department and hospitalised between September 1, 2020 and December 1, 2020 were retrospectively scanned. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and Youden J Index were used to compare scoring systems for predicting in-hospital mortality and intensive care requirement.
Results: There were 481 patients included in this study. The median age of the patients was 67 (52-79). In terms of in-hospital mortality, the AUC of CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM were 0.846, 0.784 and 0.701 respectively. In terms of intensive care requirement, the AUC of CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM were 0.898, 0.797 and 0.684 respectively. In our study, Youden's J indexes of CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM scores were found to be 0.59, 0.27 and 0.01 respectively, for mortality prediction of COVID-19 patients. Whereas Youden's J indexes were found to be 0.63, 0.26 and 0.01 respectively for determining intensive care requirement.
Conclusions: Among the scoring systems assessed, CURB-65 score had better performance in predicting in-hospital mortality and ICU requirement in COVID-19 patients. ISARIC-4C has been found successful in identifying low-risk patients and the use of the ISARIC-4C score with CURB-65 increases the accuracy of risk assessment.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8646358 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.14759 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Performance of CURB-65 and ISARIC 4C mortality scores for hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection in Saudi Arabia.
Inform Med Unlocked
May 2023
Nephrology Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic continues with new waves that could persist with the arrival of new SARS-CoV-2 variants. Therefore, the availability of validated and effective triage tools is the cornerstone for proper clinical management. Thus, this study aimed to assess the validity of the ISARIC-4C score as a triage tool for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Saudi Arabia and to compare its performance with the CURB-65 score.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAn artificial intelligence approach for predicting death or organ failure after hospitalization for COVID-19: development of a novel risk prediction tool and comparisons with ISARIC-4C, CURB-65, qSOFA, and MEWS scoring systems.
Respir Res
March 2023
Division of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Background: We applied machine learning (ML) algorithms to generate a risk prediction tool [Collaboration for Risk Evaluation in COVID-19 (CORE-COVID-19)] for predicting the composite of 30-day endotracheal intubation, intravenous administration of vasopressors, or death after COVID-19 hospitalization and compared it with the existing risk scores.
Methods: This is a retrospective study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 from March 2020 to February 2021. Patients, each with 92 variables, and one composite outcome underwent feature selection process to identify the most predictive variables.
Utility of conventional clinical risk scores in a low-risk COVID-19 cohort.
BMC Infect Dis
October 2021
Department of Infectious Diseases, National University Health System, 1E Kent Ridge Rd, NUHS Tower Block, Level 10, Singapore, 119228, Singapore.
Background: Several specific risk scores for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) involving clinical and biochemical parameters have been developed from higher-risk patients, in addition to validating well-established pneumonia risk scores. We compared multiple risk scores in predicting more severe disease in a cohort of young patients with few comorbid illnesses. Accurately predicting the progression of COVID-19 may guide triage and therapy.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPerformance of the CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM scores in terms of severity for COVID-19 patients.
Int J Clin Pract
October 2021
Department of Emergency Medicine, Dr. Lütfi Kırdar Kartal Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi, Istanbul, Turkey.
Background: In the COVID-19 pandemic, difficulties have been experienced in the provision of healthcare services because of excessive patient admissions to hospitals and emergency departments. It has become important to use clear and objective criteria for the early diagnosis of patients with high-risk classification and clinical worsening risk.
Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic accuracy of CURB-65, ISARIC-4C and COVID-GRAM scores in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and to compare the scoring systems in terms of predicting in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit requirement.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!