A novel evidence-based predictor tool for hospitalization and length of stay: insights from COVID-19 patients in New York city
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
No abstract available
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.24.21256042: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: This study was approved by the Mount Sinai Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Consent: Since no direct patient contact or intervention from the study group was needed, no patient consent was required.Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Finally, we developed a web-based calculator that uses the models to predict the probability of a patient requiring hospitalization and extended LOS using readily available components of the history and vital signs on first patient encounter using the Shiny package from R. Shinysuggested: (Shiny, RRID:SCR_001626)Results …
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.24.21256042: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: This study was approved by the Mount Sinai Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Consent: Since no direct patient contact or intervention from the study group was needed, no patient consent was required.Sex as a biological variable not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources Finally, we developed a web-based calculator that uses the models to predict the probability of a patient requiring hospitalization and extended LOS using readily available components of the history and vital signs on first patient encounter using the Shiny package from R. Shinysuggested: (Shiny, RRID:SCR_001626)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:Limitations: The findings of this study must be interpreted with caution. This analysis is based on a retrospective analysis of patients presenting to a single hospital health system in New York City, which has been at the epicenter for COVID-19. Our findings might be best extrapolated for use in urban areas with a similar elevated disease burden where the online calculator may be most useful. The concordance of our descriptive data with other published data on COVID-19 increases the confidence in our results but does not eliminate selection bias entirely. Hence, external validation remains warranted. The data lacked specific symptom variables including cough, dyspnea, and pharyngitis but incorporates objective data including vital signs and oxygen desaturation. The calculator is not meant to offer a definitive answer to the management of every COVID-19 patient but can be used to serve as an adjunct to clinical judgement in an ED setting. Given a large amount of missing data in lab values, these were not used to develop the predictive models. Still, clinical data achieved significant discrimination.
Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.
-
