Comparison of the Performance of Various Scores in Predicting Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.
covid-19
hospitalized
mortality
predicting
scores
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2021
Dec 2021
Historique:
accepted:
22
12
2021
entrez:
3
2
2022
pubmed:
4
2
2022
medline:
4
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Introduction Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major social and economic challenge, devastating the health care system in several countries around the world. Mortality scores are important as they can help health care professionals to plan treatment as per the patients' condition for proper resource allocation. When it comes to patients, it provides invaluable information for implementing advance directives. The aim of the study is to validate mortality scores for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19. Methodology This was a retrospective cohort study that included data from three tertiary care hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan. Data of patients diagnosed with confirmed COVID-19 infection and hospitalized in Ziauddin Hospital, Aga Khan Hospital, and Liaquat National Hospital were enrolled in the study from November 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. Data was extracted from the hospital management information system (HMIS) using a structured questionnaire. Results Overall, 835 patients were included in the final analysis. The mean age of patients was 53.29 (SD ± 15.17) years, and 675 patients (80.72%) were males. The sensitivity of the CALL score is highest among all four scores, i.e., 77.25%, and the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score has the lowest sensitivity (59.79%). However, CALL has the lowest specificity (58.04%), while qSOFA has the highest specificity (73.91%). However, MulBSTA and CRB-65 have a sensitivity of 70.11% and 64.96%, respectively. Conclusion The current study showed that the CALL score had better sensitivity as compared to other mortality scores.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35111439
doi: 10.7759/cureus.20751
pmc: PMC8792125
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Retracted Publication
Langues
eng
Pagination
e20751Commentaires et corrections
Type : RetractionIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021, Jilanee et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Crit Care. 2020 Jul 16;24(1):438
pubmed: 32678040
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Jan 23;72(1):182-183
pubmed: 32474605
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012 Dec;31(12):3281-6
pubmed: 22806350
Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Oct;2(10):e496-e497
pubmed: 32984794
J Infect Chemother. 2021 Feb;27(2):284-290
pubmed: 33129694
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2020 Jun 05;10:318
pubmed: 32582575
Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Oct;38(10):2074-2080
pubmed: 33142178
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 May;8(5):475-481
pubmed: 32105632
EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Aug;25:100449
pubmed: 32838231
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 21;382(21):2049-2055
pubmed: 32202722
N Engl J Med. 2020 Apr 30;382(18):1708-1720
pubmed: 32109013
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 9;15(12):e0243262
pubmed: 33296405
Science. 2020 May 1;368(6490):473-474
pubmed: 32303591
Cureus. 2020 Nov 7;12(11):e11368
pubmed: 33304701
Sci Rep. 2020 Oct 7;10(1):16726
pubmed: 33028914
BMJ. 2020 Apr 7;369:m1328
pubmed: 32265220
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2020 Jul 13;28(1):66
pubmed: 32660623
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Sep 12;71(6):1393-1399
pubmed: 32271369
Int J Clin Pract. 2021 Apr;75(4):e13858
pubmed: 33237615