Evidence Hub

Risk Factors and a Scoring System to Predict ARDS in Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia in Korea: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Jun-Won Seo, S. Kim, E. Choi, Kyung Soo Hong, T. Oh, U. Kim, Seung-Ji Kang, Kyung-Hwa Park et al.

Disease Markers, 2021

166 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

Predictive studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are limited. In this study, the predictors of ARDS were investigated and a score that can predict progression to ARDS in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia was developed. All patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia between February 1, 2020, and May 15, 2020, at five university hospitals in Korea were enrolled. Their demographic, clinical, and epidemiological characteristics and the outcomes were collected using the World Health Organization COVID-19 Case Report Form. A logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the predictors for ARDS. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed for the scoring model. Of the 166 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, 37 (22.3%) patients developed ARDS. The areas under the curves for the infiltration on a chest X-ray, C-reactive protein, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio, and age, for prediction of ARDS were 0.91, 0.90, 0.87, and 0.80, respectively (all P < 0.001). The COVID-19 ARDS Prediction Score (CAPS) was constructed using age (≥60 years old), C-reactive protein (≥5 mg/dL), and the infiltration on a chest X-ray (≥22%), with each predictor allocated 1 point. The area under the curve of COVID-19 ARDS prediction score (CAPS) for prediction of ARDS was 0.90 (95% CI 0.86–0.95; P < 0.001). It provided 100% sensitivity and 75% specificity when the CAPS score cutoff value was 2 points. CAPS,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 166 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free