TY - JOUR
T1 - Validity of prognostic models of critical COVID-19 is variable. A systematic review with external validation
AU - Cárdenas-Fuentes, Gabriela
AU - Bosch de Basea, Magda
AU - Cobo, Inés
AU - Subirana, Isaac
AU - Ceresa, Mario
AU - Famada, Ernest
AU - Gimeno-Santos, Elena
AU - Delgado-Ortiz, Laura
AU - Faner, Rosa
AU - Molina-Molina, María
AU - Agustí, Àlvar
AU - Muñoz, Xavier
AU - Sibila, Oriol
AU - Gea, Joaquim
AU - Garcia-Aymerich, Judith
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors
PY - 2023/7
Y1 - 2023/7
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - COVID-19
KW - Critical disease
KW - Epidemiology
KW - External validation
KW - Intensive care unit
KW - Prognostic models
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85161706279&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.webofscience.com/wos/alldb/full-record/WOS:001073540300001
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.04.011
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.04.011
M3 - Review
C2 - 37142168
AN - SCOPUS:85161706279
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 159
SP - 274
EP - 288
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -