Author: Thomas, Ben; Goodacre, Steve; Lee, Ellen; Sutton, Laura; Bursnall, Matthew; Loban, Amanda; Waterhouse, Simon; Simmonds, Richard; Biggs, Katie; Marincowitz, Carl; Schutter, José; Connelly, Sarah; Sheldon, Elena; Hall, Jamie; Young, Emma; Bentley, Andrew; Challen, Kirsty; Fitzsimmons, Chris; Harris, Tim; Lecky, Fiona; Lee, Andrew; Maconochie, Ian; Walter, Darren
Title: Prognostic accuracy of emergency department triage tools for adults with suspected COVID-19: the PRIEST observational cohort study Cord-id: 42y1sj6l Document date: 2021_6_2
ID: 42y1sj6l
Snippet: BACKGROUND: The WHO and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend various triage tools to assist decision-making for patients with suspected COVID-19. We aimed to compare the accuracy of triage tools for predicting severe illness in adults presenting to the ED with suspected COVID-19. METHODS: We undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 EDs across the UK. We collected data from people attending with suspected COVID-19 and used presenting
Document: BACKGROUND: The WHO and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend various triage tools to assist decision-making for patients with suspected COVID-19. We aimed to compare the accuracy of triage tools for predicting severe illness in adults presenting to the ED with suspected COVID-19. METHODS: We undertook a mixed prospective and retrospective observational cohort study in 70 EDs across the UK. We collected data from people attending with suspected COVID-19 and used presenting data to determine the results of assessment with the WHO algorithm, National Early Warning Score version 2 (NEWS2), CURB-65, CRB-65, Pandemic Modified Early Warning Score (PMEWS) and the swine flu adult hospital pathway (SFAHP). We used 30-day outcome data (death or receipt of respiratory, cardiovascular or renal support) to determine prognostic accuracy for adverse outcome. RESULTS: We analysed data from 20 891 adults, of whom 4611 (22.1%) died or received organ support (primary outcome), with 2058 (9.9%) receiving organ support and 2553 (12.2%) dying without organ support (secondary outcomes). C-statistics for the primary outcome were: CURB-65 0.75; CRB-65 0.70; PMEWS 0.77; NEWS2 (score) 0.77; NEWS2 (rule) 0.69; SFAHP (6-point rule) 0.70; SFAHP (7-point rule) 0.68; WHO algorithm 0.61. All triage tools showed worse prediction for receipt of organ support and better prediction for death without organ support. At the recommended threshold, PMEWS and the WHO criteria showed good sensitivity (0.97 and 0.95, respectively) at the expense of specificity (0.30 and 0.27, respectively). The NEWS2 score showed similar sensitivity (0.96) and specificity (0.28) when a lower threshold than recommended was used. CONCLUSION: CURB-65, PMEWS and the NEWS2 score provide good but not excellent prediction for adverse outcome in suspected COVID-19, and predicted death without organ support better than receipt of organ support. PMEWS, the WHO criteria and NEWS2 (using a lower threshold than usually recommended) provide good sensitivity at the expense of specificity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN56149622.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- acute onset and low prevalence: 1, 2
- acute onset and low threshold: 1
- acute respiratory infection and low prevalence: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
- acute respiratory infection and low threshold: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
- acute respiratory infection and low threshold sensitivity: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date