Clinical Risk Prediction Scores in Coronavirus Disease 2019: Beware of Low Validity and Clinical Utility
Several risk stratification tools were developed to predict disease progression in coronavirus disease 2019, with no external validation to date. We attempted to validate three previously published risk-stratification tools in a multicenter study. Primary outcome was a composite outcome of developme...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer
2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/a8aac6d750354c48bb0c861f989bca7e |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Several risk stratification tools were developed to predict disease progression in coronavirus disease 2019, with no external validation to date. We attempted to validate three previously published risk-stratification tools in a multicenter study. Primary outcome was a composite outcome of development of severe coronavirus disease 2019 disease leading to ICU admission or death censored at hospital discharge or 30 days. We collected data from 169 patients. Patients were 73 years old (59–82 yr old), 66 of 169 (39.1%) were female, 57 (33.7%) had one comorbidity, and 80 (47.3%) had two or more comorbidities. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (95% CI) for the COVID-GRAM score was 0.636 (0.550–0.722), for the CALL score 0.500 (0.411–0.589), and for the nomogram 0.628 (0.543–0.714). |
|---|