Cited by 206COVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentLong-Term Effects of COVID-19

A clinical risk score to identify patients with COVID-19 at high risk of critical care admission or death: An observational cohort study

Open access
Galloway, James B, Norton, Sam, Barker, Richard D, Brookes, Andrew, Carey, Ivana, Clarke, Benjamin D, Jina, Raeesa, Reid, Carole +8 more·2020·Journal of Infection

Abstract

Background The COVID-19 pandemic continues to escalate. There is urgent need to stratify patients. Understanding risk of deterioration will assist in admission and discharge decisions, and help selection for clinical studies to indicate where risk of therapy-related complications is justified.Methods An observational cohort of patients acutely admitted to two London hospitals with COVID-19 and positive SARS-CoV-2 swab results was assessed. Demographic details, clinical data, comorbidities, blood parameters and chest radiograph severity scores were collected from electronic health records. Endpoints assessed were critical care admission and death. A risk score was developed to predict outcomes.Findings Analyses included 1,157 patients. Older age, male sex, comorbidities, respiratory rate, oxygenation, radiographic severity, higher neutrophils, higher CRP and lower albumin at presentation predicted critical care admission and mortality. Non-white ethnicity predicted critical care admission but not death. Social deprivation was not predictive of outcome. A risk score was developed incorporating twelve characteristics: age>40, male, non-white ethnicity, oxygen saturations<93%, radiological severity score>3, neutrophil count>8.0 x10 9/L, CRP>40 mg/L, albumin<34 g/L, creatinine>100 µmol/L, diabetes mellitus, hypertension and chronic lung disease. Risk scores of 4 or higher corresponded to a 28-day cumulative incidence of critical care admission or death of 40.7% (95% CI: 37.1 to 44.4), versus 12.4% (95% CI: 8.2 to 16.7) for scores less than 4.Interpretation Our study identified predictors of critical care admission and death in people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. These predictors were incorporated into a risk score that will inform clinical care and stratify patients for clinical trials.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jinf.2020.05.064

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A critical decision in emergency evaluation is whether a patient is likely to need invasive or resource-limited interventions.

    “A critical decision made during the evaluation of a patient at the initial point of care or the ED, is whether the patient is likely to require more invasive or resource-limited countermeasures or interventions”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 14 · Cited by 206

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [16]Carver C., Jones N.Comparative accuracy of oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs for diagnosis of COVID-19. Oxford COVID-19 evidence service team centre for evidence based medicine. 2020. [Cited 2020 Apr 20]. Available from: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/comparative-accuracy-of-oropharyngeal-and-nasopharyngeal-swabs-for-diagnosis-of-covid-19/

Authors
Galloway, J. B., Norton, S., Barker, R. D., Brookes, A., Carey, I., Clarke, B. D., Jina, R., Reid, C., Russell, M. D., Sneep, R., Sugarman, L., Williams, S., Yates, M., Teo, J., Shah, A. M., & Cantle, F.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • King's College Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Galloway, James B
Venue
Journal of Infection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-08
Volume
81
Issue
2
Pages
282-288
ISSN
0163-4453 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3029616546
Cited by
206
References
14
Citations by year
2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 33
FWCI
5.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Infection (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health Research
  • British Heart Foundation (CH/1999001/11735)
  • King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (IS-BRC-1215-20006)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Long-Term Effects of COVID-19
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, clinical risk score, intensive care unit admission, mortality, risk stratification, prognostic factors, neutrophil count, C-reactive protein, albumin, comorbidities, ethnicity, social deprivation, acute hospitalization
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Critical Care, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, London, Male, Middle Aged, Pneumonia, Viral, Radiography, Risk Factors, Thorax, Cohort Studies, Comorbidity, Coronavirus Infections, Young Adult, Electronic Health Records, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review