Validity of prognostic models of critical COVID-19 is variable. A systematic review with external validation

dc.contributor.author
Bosch de Basea, Magda
dc.contributor.author
Cobo, Inés
dc.contributor.author
Subirana Cachinero, Isaac
dc.contributor.author
Ceresa, Mario
dc.contributor.author
Famada, Ernest
dc.contributor.author
Gimeno Santos, Elena, 1980-
dc.contributor.author
Delgado-Ortiz, Laura
dc.contributor.author
Faner, Rosa
dc.contributor.author
Molina Molina, María
dc.contributor.author
Agustí García-Navarro, Àlvar
dc.contributor.author
Muñoz, Xavier
dc.contributor.author
Sibila Vidal, Oriol
dc.contributor.author
Gea Guiral, Joaquim
dc.contributor.author
García Aymerich, Judith
dc.date.issued
2024-03-08T18:41:43Z
dc.date.issued
2024-03-08T18:41:43Z
dc.date.issued
2023
dc.date.issued
2024-03-08T18:41:43Z
dc.identifier
0895-4356
dc.identifier
https://hdl.handle.net/2445/208559
dc.identifier
744783
dc.identifier
37142168
dc.description.abstract
Objectives: To identify prognostic models which estimate the risk of critical COVID-19 in hospitalized patients and to assess their validation properties. Study design and setting: We conducted a systematic review in Medline (up to January 2021) of studies developing or updating a model that estimated the risk of critical COVID-19, defined as death, admission to intensive care unit, and/or use of mechanical ventilation during admission. Models were validated in two datasets with different backgrounds (HM [private Spanish hospital network], n = 1,753, and ICS [public Catalan health system], n = 1,104), by assessing discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]) and calibration (plots). Results: We validated 18 prognostic models. Discrimination was good in nine of them (AUCs ≥ 80%) and higher in those predicting mortality (AUCs 65%-87%) than those predicting intensive care unit admission or a composite outcome (AUCs 53%-78%). Calibration was poor in all models providing outcome's probabilities and good in four models providing a point-based score. These four models used mortality as outcome and included age, oxygen saturation, and C-reactive protein among their predictors. Conclusion: The validity of models predicting critical COVID-19 by using only routinely collected predictors is variable. Four models showed good discrimination and calibration when externally validated and are recommended for their use.
dc.format
15 p.
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.language
eng
dc.publisher
Elsevier
dc.relation
Reproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.04.011
dc.relation
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2023, vol. 159, p. 274-288
dc.relation
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.04.011
dc.rights
cc-by-nc-nd (c) Bosch de Basea, Magda, et al.; Elsevier B.V., 2023
dc.rights
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.source
Articles publicats en revistes (Biomedicina)
dc.subject
COVID-19
dc.subject
Assistència hospitalària
dc.subject
Unitats de cures intensives
dc.subject
COVID-19
dc.subject
Hospital care
dc.subject
Intensive care units
dc.title
Validity of prognostic models of critical COVID-19 is variable. A systematic review with external validation
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.