This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
BackgroundIdentification of patients on admission to hospital with Coronavirus infectious disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia who can develop poor outcomes have not yet ben comprehensively assessed.ObjectiveTo compare severity scores used for community acquired pneumonia to identify high-risk patients.DesignPSI, CURB-65, qSOFA and MuLBSTA, a new score for viral pneumonia, were calculated on admission to hospital to identify high-risk patients for in-hospital mortality. Area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), sensitivity and specificity for each score were determined and AUROC were compared among them.ParticipantsPatients with COVID-19 pneumonia included in the SEMI-COVID-19 Network.Key resultsWe examined 10,238 patients with COVID-19. Mean age of patients was 66.6 years and 57.9% were males. The most common comorbidities were: hypertension (49.2%), diabetes (18.8%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (12.8%). Acute respiratory distress syndrome (34.7%) and acute kidney injury (13.9%) were the most common complications. In-hospital mortality was 20.9%. PSI and CURB-65 showed the highest AUROC (0.835 and0.825, respectively). qSOFA and MuLBSTA had a lower AUROC (0.728 and 0.715, respectively). qSOFA was the most specific score (specificity 95.7%) albeit its sensitivity was only 26.2%. PSI had the highest sensitivity (84.1%) and a specificity of 72.2%.ConclusionsPSI and CURB-65, specific severity scores for pneumonia, were the best scores for COVID-19 pneumonia and were better than qSOFA and MuLBSTA. Additionally, qSOFA, the simplest score to perform, was the most specific albeit the least sensitive.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Artero et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: