Author
Listed:
- Ali A El-Solh
- Yolanda Lawson
- Michael Carter
- Daniel A El-Solh
- Kari A Mergenhagen
Abstract
Objective: Our objective is to compare the predictive accuracy of four recently established outcome models of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) published between January 1st and May 1st 2020. Methods: We used data obtained from the Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) between January 1st, 2020, and May 1st 2020 as an external validation cohort. The outcome measure was hospital mortality. Areas under the ROC (AUC) curves were used to evaluate discrimination of the four predictive models. The Hosmer–Lemeshow (HL) goodness-of-fit test and calibration curves assessed applicability of the models to individual cases. Results: During the study period, 1634 unique patients were identified. The mean age of the study cohort was 68.8±13.4 years. Hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and heart disease were the most common comorbidities. The crude hospital mortality was 29% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27–0.31). Evaluation of the predictive models showed an AUC range from 0.63 (95% CI 0.60–0.66) to 0.72 (95% CI 0.69–0.74) indicating fair to poor discrimination across all models. There were no significant differences among the AUC values of the four prognostic systems. All models calibrated poorly by either overestimated or underestimated hospital mortality. Conclusions: All the four prognostic models examined in this study portend high-risk bias. The performance of these scores needs to be interpreted with caution in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.
Suggested Citation
Ali A El-Solh & Yolanda Lawson & Michael Carter & Daniel A El-Solh & Kari A Mergenhagen, 2020.
"Comparison of in-hospital mortality risk prediction models from COVID-19,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-13, December.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0244629
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244629
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0244629. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.