Evidence Hub

Comparisons of mortality predictions of mROX, CURB-65, and APACHE II in patients with severe pneumonia: A retrospective cohort study

Jin-Yuan Zhu, Furui Liu, Honglei Qi, Xue Li, Yong-Hong Yang, Ying Yang, Zhao-Jun Wang, Jia-Li Wu

Medicine, 2025

140 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

This study investigates the efficacy of the modified respiratory rate oxygenation (mROX) index, the CURB-65 score, their combination, and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score in predicting mortality among patients with severe pneumonia over various time frames. This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from patients admitted with severe pneumonia between January 2017 and December 2023. Patient demographics and 7-, 14-, and 28-day mortality outcomes were collected. The mROX, CURB-65, and APACHE II scores were computed upon hospital admission. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, time-dependent ROC curve, and survival curve analyses were conducted to assess the mortality predictive performance of mROX, CURB-65, and their combination, as well as APACHE II. The study included 140 patients, of whom 100 (71.4%) were male, with a median age of 65.0 years (interquartile range: 24.0). Within 28 days, 91 (65.0%) patients had succumbed. Compared to survivors, deceased patients exhibited higher CURB-65 scores and lower mROX indices. ROC analysis indicated that mROX outperformed CURB-65 and APACHE II in sensitivity, accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) for predicting 28-day mortality. The combination of mROX and CURB-65 yielded the highest AUC (72.1%), suggesting enhanced mortality prediction accuracy. Time-dependent ROC and AUC analyses demonstrated the superior predictive capability of APACHE II within the initial 7 days…

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: 140 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