Evidence Hub

Efficacy of Scoring Systems for Routing and Predicting Length of ICU Stay in Severe Community-Acquired Pneumonia

I. A. Ruslyakova, E. Z. Shamsutdinova, Galina A. Mityuchenko, Alexandra O. Orlova, E. Avalueva

General Reanimatology, 2025

664 participants

Abstract

Scoring systems based on assessment of disease severity and patient condition are widely used for routing and predicting length of stay in the ICU. However, their effectiveness varies in patients with sepsis.The aim of the study. To evaluate the effectiveness of scoring systems in routing and predicting ICU length of stay in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP).Materials and methods. Medical records of 664 patients from the Intensive Care for Severe CAP database of I. I. Mechnikov Northwestern State Medical University (2013–2023) were analyzed using the following scoring scales: CURB-65, PSI/PORT, SMART-COP, SCAP, REA-ICU, NEWS2, IDSA/ATS criteria, APACHE IV, CFS, and CCI. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistica 10.0, SPSS, and Stat Research (Center for Statistical Research) software.Results. Among the study cohort, 96 patients (15%) had bacterial severe CAP (bCAP) and 568 patients (85%) had viral severe CAP (vCAP), all of whom were admitted to the ICU. A NEWS2 score ≥2 was observed in 74 (77.1%) bCAP patients and all vCAP patients (P7 days) was observed in older patients with severe bCAP, but did not significantly affect ICU length of stay or outcomes. A strong correlation was found between adverse outcome and predicted mortality using APACHE IV (η=0.966 for vCAP and η=0.807 for bCAP). However, no correlation was observed between predicted and actual ICU length of stay for both vCAP and bCAP patients (R²=0.0257, Kendall's W=0.018 for vCAP;…

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: 664 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