Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Predicting mortality with pneumonia severity scores: importance of model recalibration to local settings

  • P. SCHUETZ (a1) (a2), M. KOLLER (a2), M. CHRIST-CRAIN (a1), E. STEYERBERG (a3), D. STOLZ (a4), C. MÜLLER (a1), H. C. BUCHER (a2), R. BINGISSER (a1), M. TAMM (a4) and B. MÜLLER (a1)...

Summary

In patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) prediction rules based on individual predicted mortalities are frequently used to support decision-making for in-patient vs. outpatient management. We studied the accuracy and the need for recalibration of three risk prediction scores in a tertiary-care University hospital emergency-department setting in Switzerland. We pooled data from patients with CAP enrolled in two randomized controlled trials. We compared expected mortality from the original pneumonia severity index (PSI), CURB65 and CRB65 scores against observed mortality (calibration) and recalibrated the scores by fitting the intercept α and the calibration slope β from our calibration model. Each of the original models underestimated the observed 30-day mortality of 11%, in 371 patients admitted to the emergency department with CAP (8·4%, 5·5% and 5·0% for the PSI, CURB65 and CRB65 scores, respectively). In particular, we observed a relevant mortality within the low risk classes of the original models (2·6%, 5·3%, and 3·7% for PSI classes I–III, CURB65 classes 0–1, and CRB65 class 0, respectively). Recalibration of the original risk models corrected the miscalibration. After recalibration, however, only PSI class I was sensitive enough to identify patients with a low risk (i.e. <1%) for mortality suitable for outpatient management. In our tertiary-care setting with mostly referred in-patients, CAP risk scores substantially underestimated observed mortalities misclassifying patients with relevant risks of death suitable for outpatient management. Prior to the implementation of CAP risk scores in the clinical setting, the need for recalibration and the accuracy of low-risk re-classification should be studied in order to adhere with discharge guidelines and guarantee patients' safety.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Predicting mortality with pneumonia severity scores: importance of model recalibration to local settings
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Predicting mortality with pneumonia severity scores: importance of model recalibration to local settings
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Predicting mortality with pneumonia severity scores: importance of model recalibration to local settings
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

*Author for correspondence: Dr.med. P. Schuetz, Department of Internal Medicine and Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology (BICE), University Hospital Basel, Petersgraben 4, CH-4031 Basel, Switzerland. (Email: schuetzp@uhbs.ch)

References

Hide All
1. Macfarlane, JT, et al. Prospective study of aetiology and outcome of adult0 lower respiratory tract infections in the community. Lancet 1993; 341: 511514.
2. Dixon, RE. Economic costs of respiratory tract infections in the United States. American Journal of Medicine 1985; 78: 4551.
3. Niederman, MS, et al. Guidelines for the management of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Diagnosis, assessment of severity, antimicrobial therapy, and prevention. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2001; 163: 17301754.
4. Woodhead, M, et al. Guidelines for the management of adult lower respiratory tract infections. European Respiratory Journal 2005; 26: 11381180.
5. Fine, MJ, et al. A prediction rule to identify low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia. New England Journal of Medicine 1997; 336: 243250.
6. Lim, WS, et al. Study of community acquired pneumonia aetiology (SCAPA) in adults admitted to hospital: implications for management guidelines. Thorax 2001; 56: 296301.
7. Lim, WS, et al. Defining community acquired pneumonia severity on presentation to hospital: an international derivation and validation study. Thorax 2003; 58: 377382.
8. Neill, AM, et al. Community acquired pneumonia: aetiology and usefulness of severity criteria on admission. Thorax 1996; 51: 10101016.
9. Justice, AC, Covinsky, KE, Berlin, JA. Assessing the generalizability of prognostic information. Annals of Internal Medicine 1999; 130: 515524.
10. Flanders, WD, et al. Validation of the pneumonia severity index. Importance of study-specific recalibration. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1999; 14: 333340.
11. Yan Man, S, et al. Prospective comparison of three predictive rules for assessing severity of community-acquired pneumonia in Hong Kong. Thorax 2007; 62: 348353.
12. Capelastegui, A, et al. Validation of a predictive rule for the management of community-acquired pneumonia. European Respiratory Journal 2006; 27: 151157.
13. Marras, TK, Gutierrez, C, Chan, CK. Applying a prediction rule to identify low-risk patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Chest 2000; 118: 13391343.
14. Buising, KL, et al. A prospective comparison of severity scores for identifying patients with severe community acquired pneumonia: reconsidering what is meant by severe pneumonia. Thorax 2006; 61: 419424.
15. Ewig, S, et al. Validation of predictive rules and indices of severity for community acquired pneumonia. Thorax 2004; 59: 421427.
16. Spindler, C, Ortqvist, A. Prognostic score systems and community-acquired bacteraemic pneumococcal pneumonia. European Respiratory Journal 2006; 28: 816823.
17. Aujesky, D, et al. Prospective comparison of three validated prediction rules for prognosis in community-acquired pneumonia. American Journal of Medicine 2005; 118: 384392.
18. Christ-Crain, M, et al. Effect of procalcitonin-guided treatment on antibiotic use and outcome in lower respiratory tract infections: cluster-randomised, single-blinded intervention trial. Lancet 2004; 363: 600607.
19. Christ-Crain, M, et al. Procalcitonin guidance of antibiotic therapy in community-acquired pneumonia: a randomized trial. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2006; 174: 8493.
20. Steyerberg, EW, et al. Validation and updating of predictive logistic regression models: a study on sample size and shrinkage. Statistics in Medicine 2004; 23: 25672586.
21. Steyerberg, EW, et al. Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2001; 54: 774781.
22. Poses, RM, Cebul, RD, Centor, RM. Evaluating physicians' probabilistic judgments. Medical Decision Making 1988; 8: 233240.
23. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2006.
24. Harrell, FE. Design: Design Package. R package version 2.0-12, 2005.
25. van Houwelingen, HC. Validation, calibration, revision and combination of prognostic survival models. Statistics in Medicine 2000; 19: 34013415.
26. Vergouwe, Y, et al. Substantial effective sample sizes were required for external validation studies of predictive logistic regression models. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2005; 58: 475483.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Epidemiology & Infection
  • ISSN: 0950-2688
  • EISSN: 1469-4409
  • URL: /core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed