Predictive accuracy of enhanced versions of the on-admission National Early Warning Score in estimating the risk of COVID-19 for unplanned admission to hospital: a retrospective development and validation study
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Background
The novel coronavirus SARS-19 produces ‘COVID-19’ in patients with symptoms. COVID-19 patients admitted to the hospital require early assessment and care including isolation. The National Early Warning Score (NEWS) and its updated version NEWS2 is a simple physiological scoring system used in hospitals, which may be useful in the early identification of COVID-19 patients. We investigate the performance of multiple enhanced NEWS2 models in predicting the risk of COVID-19.
Methods
Our cohort included unplanned adult medical admissions discharged over 3 months (11 March 2020 to 13 June 2020 ) from two hospitals (YH for model development; SH for external model validation). We used logistic regression to build multiple prediction models for the risk of COVID-19 using the first electronically recorded NEWS2 within ± 24 hours of admission. Model M0’ included NEWS2; model M1’ included NEWS2 + age + sex, and model M2’ extends model M1’ with subcomponents of NEWS2 (including diastolic blood pressure + oxygen flow rate + oxygen scale). Model performance was evaluated according to discrimination (c statistic), calibration (graphically), and clinical usefulness at NEWS2 ≥ 5.
Results
The prevalence of COVID-19 was higher in SH (11.0 %=277/2520) than YH (8.7 %=343/3924) with a higher first NEWS2 scores ( SH 3.2 vs YH 2.8) but similar in-hospital mortality (SH 8.4 % vs YH 8.2 %). The c-statistics for predicting the risk of COVID-19 for models M0’,M1’,M2’ in the development dataset were: M0’: 0.71 (95 %CI 0.68–0.74); M1’: 0.67 (95 %CI 0.64–0.70) and M2’: 0.78 (95 %CI 0.75–0.80)). For the validation datasets the c-statistics were: M0’ 0.65 (95 %CI 0.61–0.68); M1’: 0.67 (95 %CI 0.64–0.70) and M2’: 0.72 (95 %CI 0.69–0.75) ). The calibration slope was similar across all models but Model M2’ had the highest sensitivity (M0’ 44 % (95 %CI 38-50 %); M1’ 53 % (95 %CI 47-59 %) and M2’: 57 % (95 %CI 51-63 %)) and specificity (M0’ 75 % (95 %CI 73-77 %); M1’ 72 % (95 %CI 70-74 %) and M2’: 76 % (95 %CI 74-78 %)) for the validation dataset at NEWS2 ≥ 5.
Conclusions
Model M2’ appears to be reasonably accurate for predicting the risk of COVID-19. It may be clinically useful as an early warning system at the time of admission especially to triage large numbers of unplanned hospital admissions.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.30.20241257: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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:There are limitations in relation to our study. We identified COVID-19 based on ICD-10 code ‘U071’ which was determined by clinical judgment and/or swab test results and so our findings are constrained by the accuracy of these …
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.30.20241257: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
No key resources detected.
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:There are limitations in relation to our study. We identified COVID-19 based on ICD-10 code ‘U071’ which was determined by clinical judgment and/or swab test results and so our findings are constrained by the accuracy of these methods (23, 24). We used the index NEWS or NEWS2 data in our models, which reflects the “on-admission” risk of COVID-19 of the patient. Nonetheless, vital signs are repeatedly updated for each patient according to hospital protocols. Although we developed models using one hospital data and validated into other hospital data, the extent to which changes in vital signs over time reflect changes in COVID-19 risk that need to be incorporated in our models needs further study. While most of the studies reported insufficient sample size (25), our study was sufficiently large for developing and validating relatively simple NEWS/NEWS2 based prediction models(19). Our two hospitals are part of the same NHS Trust and this may undermine the generalisability of our findings, which merit further external validation. Furthermore, a crucial next phase of this work is to field test our models by carefully engineering then into routine clinical practice (26, 27) to see if they do support the earlier detection and care of COVID-19 in emergency medical patients without unintended adverse consequences.
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.
-
