ABSTRACT
Background Most COVID-19 mortality scores were developed in the early months of the pandemic and now available evidence-based interventions have helped reduce its lethality. It has not been evaluated if the original predictive performance of these scores holds true nor compared it against Clinical Gestalt predictions. We tested the current predictive accuracy of six COVID-19 scores and compared it with Clinical Gestalt predictions.
Methods 200 COVID-19 patients were enrolled in a tertiary hospital in Mexico City between September and December 2020. Clinical Gestalt predictions of death (as a percentage) and LOW-HARM, qSOFA, MSL-COVID-19, NUTRI-CoV and NEWS2 were obtained at admission. We calculated the AUC of each score and compared it against Clinical Gestalt predictions and against their respective originally reported value.
Results 106 men and 60 women aged 56+/-9 and with confirmed COVID-19 were included in the analysis. The observed AUC of all scores was significantly lower than originally reported; LOW-HARM 0.96 (0.94-0.98) vs 0.76 (0.69-0.84), qSOFA 0.74 (0.65-0.81) vs 0.61 (0.53-0.69), MSL-COVID-19 0.72 (0.69-0.75) vs 0.64 (0.55-0.73) NUTRI-CoV 0.79 (0.76-0.82) vs 0.60 (0.51-0.69), NEWS2 0.84 (0.79-0.90) vs 0.65 (0.56-0.75), Neutrophil-Lymphocyte ratio 0.74 (0.62-0.85) vs 0.65 (0.57-0.73). Clinical Gestalt predictions were non-inferior to mortality scores (AUC=0.68 (0.59-0.77)). Adjusting the LOW-HARM score with locally derived likelihood ratios did not improve its performance. However, some scores performed better than Clinical Gestalt predictions when clinician’s confidence of prediction was <80%.
Conclusion No score was significantly better than Clinical Gestalt predictions. Despite its subjective nature, Clinical Gestalt has relevant advantages for predicting COVID-19 clinical outcomes.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study recieved no external funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Research on Humans of the National Institute of Medical Sciences and Nutrition Salvador Zubiran on August 25, 2020 (Reg. No. DMC‐3369‐20‐20‐1-1a).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Anonymized data will be shared upon request to the corresponding author.
