Selected article for: "clinical deterioration and cumulative incidence"
Author: Yabing Guo; Yingxia Liu; Jiatao Lu; Rong Fan; Fuchun Zhang; Xueru Yin; Zhihong Liu; Qinglang Zeng; Jing Yuan; Shufang Hu; Qiongya Wang; Baolin Liao; Mingxing Huang; Sichun Yin; Xilin Zhang; Rui Xin; Zhanzhou Lin; Changzheng Hu; Boliang Zhao; Ridong He; Minfeng Liang; Zheng Zhang; Li Liu; Jian Sun; Lu Tang; Lisi Deng; Jinyu Xia; Xiaoping Tang; Lei Liu; Jinlin Hou
Title: Development and validation of an early warning score (EWAS) for predicting clinical deterioration in patients with coronavirus disease 2019
  • Document date: 2020_4_21
    • ID: e2wevpi6_23
    Snippet: The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not peer-reviewed) is the . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.17.20064691 doi: medRxiv preprint estimated coefficient from a multivariable Cox regression analysis divided by the smallest χ 2 coefficient (Table 3) . EWAS ranged from 0 to 4.5. The AUROC was 0.857 (95% CI, 0.807 -0.907, p <.001) in the training cohort. Using two and three as the cutoff values, among the 552 patients with available sco.....
    Document: The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not peer-reviewed) is the . https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.17.20064691 doi: medRxiv preprint estimated coefficient from a multivariable Cox regression analysis divided by the smallest χ 2 coefficient (Table 3) . EWAS ranged from 0 to 4.5. The AUROC was 0.857 (95% CI, 0.807 -0.907, p <.001) in the training cohort. Using two and three as the cutoff values, among the 552 patients with available scores, 338 (61.2%), 146 (26.4%) and 68 (12.3%) patients were in the low-, medium-, and high-risk categories. The 14-day cumulative incidence rates of clinical deterioration were 1.8%, 14.4%, and 40.9% in the three risk groups, respectively (p <.001). ( Figure 1A) The cut-off value of two was associated with 70.8% sensitivity and 96.9% negative predictive value (NPV). The cut-off value of three resulted in 94.6% specificity and 39.7% positive predictive value (PPV) ( Table 4 ). The calibration plot for the 14-day probability of remaining free clinical deterioration was predicted well in the training cohort ( Figure 1C ).

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • available score and high risk: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
    • available score and negative predictive value: 1, 2, 3, 4
    • available score and positive predictive value: 1, 2, 3
    • calibration plot and clinical deterioration: 1
    • calibration plot and Cox regression: 1, 2, 3
    • calibration plot and Cox regression analysis: 1, 2
    • calibration plot and cut value: 1, 2
    • calibration plot and high risk: 1, 2, 3, 4
    • calibration plot and negative predictive value: 1
    • calibration plot and NPV negative predictive value: 1
    • calibration plot and NPV negative predictive value sensitivity: 1
    • calibration plot and positive predictive value: 1
    • clinical deterioration and Cox regression: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
    • clinical deterioration and Cox regression analysis: 1
    • clinical deterioration and cut value: 1, 2
    • clinical deterioration and cutoff value: 1
    • clinical deterioration and free clinical deterioration: 1, 2
    • clinical deterioration and high risk: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25
    • clinical deterioration and incidence rate: 1, 2