Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/208559
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBosch de Basea, Magda-
dc.contributor.authorCobo, Inés-
dc.contributor.authorSubirana Cachinero, Isaac-
dc.contributor.authorCeresa, Mario-
dc.contributor.authorFamada, Ernest-
dc.contributor.authorGimeno Santos, Elena-
dc.contributor.authorDelgado-Ortiz, Laura-
dc.contributor.authorFaner, Rosa-
dc.contributor.authorMolina-Molina, María-
dc.contributor.authorAgustí García-Navarro, Àlvar-
dc.contributor.authorMuñoz, Xavier-
dc.contributor.authorSibila Vidal, Oriol-
dc.contributor.authorGea Guiral, Joaquim-
dc.contributor.authorGarcía Aymerich, Judith-
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-08T18:41:43Z-
dc.date.available2024-03-08T18:41:43Z-
dc.date.issued2023-
dc.identifier.issn0895-4356-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2445/208559-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: 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.extent15 p.-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherElsevier-
dc.relation.isformatofReproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.04.011-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2023, vol. 159, p. 274-288-
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.04.011-
dc.rightscc-by-nc-nd (c) Bosch de Basea, Magda, et al.; Elsevier B.V., 2023-
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/-
dc.sourceArticles publicats en revistes (Biomedicina)-
dc.subject.classificationCOVID-19-
dc.subject.classificationAssistència hospitalària-
dc.subject.classificationUnitats de cures intensives-
dc.subject.otherCOVID-19-
dc.subject.otherHospital care-
dc.subject.otherIntensive care units-
dc.titleValidity of prognostic models of critical COVID-19 is variable. A systematic review with external validation-
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article-
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion-
dc.identifier.idgrec744783-
dc.date.updated2024-03-08T18:41:43Z-
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess-
dc.identifier.pmid37142168-
Appears in Collections:Articles publicats en revistes (Institut d'lnvestigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL))
Articles publicats en revistes (IDIBAPS: Institut d'investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer)
Articles publicats en revistes (Biomedicina)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
848561.pdf960.08 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons