RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Predictive accuracy of computer-aided 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
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.11.30.20241257
DO 10.1101/2020.11.30.20241257
A1 Faisal, Muhammad
A1 Mohammed, Mohammed A
A1 Richardson, Donald
A1 Steyerberg, Ewout W.
A1 Fiori, Massimo
A1 Beatson, Kevin
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/12/02/2020.11.30.20241257.abstract
AB Objectives To consider the potential of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) for COVID-19 risk prediction on unplanned admission to hospital.Design Logistic regression model development and validation study using a cohort of unplanned emergency medical admission to hospital.Setting York Hospital (YH) as model development dataset and Scarborough Hospital (SH) as model validation dataset.Participants 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) based on admission NEWS2 electronically recorded within ±24 hours of admission. We used logistic regression modelling to predict the risk of COVID-19 using NEWS2 (Model M0’) versus enhanced cNEWS models which included age + sex (model M1’) + subcomponents (including diastolic blood pressure + oxygen flow rate + oxygen scale) of NEWS2 (model M2’). The ICD-10 code ‘U071’ was used to identify COVID-19 admissions. 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 higher index NEWS2 (3.2 vs 2.8) but similar in-hospital mortality (8.4% vs 8.2%). The c-statistics for predicting COVID-19 for cNEWS models (M1’,M2’) was substantially better than NEWS2 alone (M0’) in development (M2’: 0.78 (95%CI 0.75-0.80) vs M0’ 0.71 (95%CI 0.68-0.74)) and validation datasets (M2’: 0.72 (95%CI 0.69-0.75) vs M0’ 0.65 (95%CI 0.61-0.68)). Model M2’ had better calibration than Model M0’ with improved sensitivity (M2’: 57% (95%CI 51%-63%) vs M0’ 44% (95%CI 38%-50%)) and similar specificity (M2’: 76% (95%CI 74%-78%) vs M0’ 75% (95%CI 73%-77%)) for validation dataset at NEWS2≥5.Conclusions Model M2’ is reasonably accurate for predicting the on-admission risk of COVID-19. It may be clinically useful for an early warning system at the time of admission especially to triage large numbers of unplanned hospital admissions.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research was supported by the Health Foundation. The Health Foundation is an independent charity working to improve the quality of healthcare in the UK. This research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Yorkshire and Humber Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR Yorkshire and Humber PSTRC). The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the Health Foundation, the NIHR, or the Department of Health.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was deemed to be exempt from ethical approval because it was classified as an evaluation. Furthermore, this study used already de-identified data from an ongoing study involving NEWS which received ethical approval from Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) (reference number 19/HRA/0548).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesOur data sharing agreement is with York hospital and does not permit us to share the data used in this paper.