dc.contributor | Universitat Ramon Llull. Facultat de Ciències de la Salut Blanquerna | |
dc.contributor.author | Cárdenas-Fuentes, Gabriela | |
dc.contributor.author | Bosch de Basea Gómez, Magda | |
dc.contributor.author | Cobo, Inés | |
dc.contributor.author | Subirana, Isaac | |
dc.contributor.author | Ceresa, Mario | |
dc.contributor.author | Famada, Ernest | |
dc.contributor.author | Gimeno-Santos, Elena | |
dc.contributor.author | Delgado-Ortiz, Laura | |
dc.contributor.author | Faner, Rosa | |
dc.contributor.author | Molina-Molina, María | |
dc.contributor.author | Agustí, Àlvar | |
dc.contributor.author | Muñoz, Xavier | |
dc.contributor.author | Sibila, Oriol | |
dc.contributor.author | Gea, Joaquim | |
dc.contributor.author | Garcia Aymerich, Judith | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2025-03-26T19:03:09Z | |
dc.date.available | 2025-03-26T19:03:09Z | |
dc.date.created | 2023-04 | |
dc.date.issued | 2023-07 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14342/5177 | |
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. | ca |
dc.format.extent | 15 p. | ca |
dc.language.iso | eng | ca |
dc.publisher | Elsevier | ca |
dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2023, 159: 274-288 | ca |
dc.rights | © L'autor/a | ca |
dc.rights | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International | * |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ | * |
dc.subject.other | COVID-19 (Malaltia) | ca |
dc.subject.other | Malaltia crítica | ca |
dc.subject.other | Unitats de cures intensives | ca |
dc.subject.other | Prognosi | ca |
dc.subject.other | Validació externa | ca |
dc.subject.other | Epidemiologia | ca |
dc.title | Validity of prognostic models of critical COVID-19 is variable. A systematic review with external validation | ca |
dc.type | info:eu-repo/semantics/article | ca |
dc.rights.accessLevel | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
dc.embargo.terms | cap | ca |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.04.011 | ca |
dc.description.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | ca |