Predicting poor outcome in patients with suspected COVID-19 presenting to the Emergency Department (COVERED) - Development, internal and external validation of a prediction model.

BACKGROUND: A recent systematic review recommends against the use of any of the current COVID-19 prediction models in clinical practice. To enable clinicians to appropriately profile and treat suspected COVID-19 patients at the emergency department (ED), externally validated models that predict poor outcome are desperately needed. OBJECTIVE: Our aims were to identify predictors of poor outcome, defined as mortality or ICU admission within 30 days, in patients presenting to the ED with a clinical suspicion of COVID-19, and to develop and externally validate a prediction model for poor outcome. METHODS: In this prospective, multi-center study, we enrolled suspected COVID-19 patients presenting at the EDs of two hospitals in the Netherlands. We used backward logistic regression to develop a prediction model. We used the area under the curve (AUC), Brier score and pseudo-R2 to assess model performance. The model was externally validated in an Italian cohort. RESULTS: We included 1193 patients between March 12 and May 27 2020, of whom 196 (16.4%) had a poor outcome. We identified 10 predictors of poor outcome: current malignancy (OR 2.774; 95%CI 1.682-4.576), systolic blood pressure (OR 0.981; 95%CI 0.964-0.998), heart rate (OR 1.001; 95%CI 0.97-1.028), respiratory rate (OR 1.078; 95%CI 1.046-1.111), oxygen saturation (OR 0.899; 95%CI 0.850-0.952), body temperature (OR 0.505; 95%CI 0.359-0.710), serum urea (OR 1.404; 95%CI 1.198-1.645), C-reactive protein (OR 1.013; 95%CI 1.001-1.024), lactate dehydrogenase (OR 1.007; 95%CI 1.002-1.013) and SARS-CoV-2 PCR result (OR 2.456; 95%CI 1.526-3.953). The AUC was 0.86 (95%CI 0.83-0.89), with a Brier score of 0.32 and, and R2 of 0.41. The AUC in the external validation in 500 patients was 0.70 (95%CI 0.65-0.75). CONCLUSION: The COVERED risk score showed excellent discriminatory ability, also in an external validation. It may aid clinical decision making, and improve triage at the ED in health care environments with high patient throughputs.

Three-dimensional kinematics of the cervical spine using an electromagnetic tracking device. Differences between healthy subjects and subjects with non-specific neck pain and the effect of age.

BACKGROUND: A cross-sectional observational study of three-dimensional cervical kinematics in 35 non-specific neck pain patients and 100 asymptomatic controls. To compare qualitative and quantitative aspects of cervical kinematics between healthy subjects and subjects with non-specific neck pain and to determine the effect of age on cervical kinematics in healthy subjects. METHODS: Three-dimensional kinematics of active lateral bending and flexion-extension of 35 patients and 100 controls were registered by means of an electromagnetic tracking system. The means of several kinematic parameters were compared using t-tests. In addition, we assessed the age-dependency of the three-dimensional kinematic parameters by stratifying the 100 control subjects in 6 age categories. FINDINGS: Comparison of the patient group with the control group reveals no statistically significant differences in qualitative and quantitative parameters. Analysis of the effect of age showed that the range of motion decreases significantly (p < 0.01) with increasing age. In lateral bending, the ratio between axial rotation and lateral bending increases significantly (p < 0.01) among older subjects. Differences in acceleration, jerk and polynomial fit are seen between the age categories, but are not significant. INTERPRETATION: This study demonstrates no significant differences in kinematic parameters between healthy subjects and subjects with non-specific neck pain. Healthy subjects in higher age categories demonstrate higher ratios of coupled movements and lower ranges of motion. Future research should focus on classifying patients with non-specific neck pain in order to gain a better insight on possible subgroup specific differences in kinematics. More studies on this subject are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Natural course of pain and disability following primary lumbar discectomy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge about the natural clinical course is needed to improve understanding of recovery postsurgery as outcome is poor for some patients. Knowledge of the natural clinical course of symptoms and disability will inform optimal timing and the nature of rehabilitation intervention. The objective of this study is to provide first evidence synthesis investigating the natural clinical course of disability and pain in patients aged >16 years post primary lumbar discectomy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and data synthesis will be conducted. Prospective cohorts that include a well-defined inception cohort (point of surgery) of adult participants who have undergone primary lumbar discectomy/microdiscectomy will be included. Outcomes will include measurements reported on 1 or more outcomes of disability and pain, with a baseline presurgery measurement. Following development of the search strategy, 2 reviewers will independently search information sources, assess identified studies for inclusion, extract data and assess risk of bias. A third reviewer will mediate on any disagreement at each stage. The search will employ sensitive topic-based strategies designed for each database from inception to 31 January 2016. There will be no language or geographical restrictions. Risk of bias will be assessed using a modified QUality In Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool . Data will be extracted for time points where follow-up was at least 80%. Means and 95% CIs will be plotted over time for pain and disability. All results will be reported in the context of study quality. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will provide the first rigorous summary of the course of pain and disability across all published prospective cohorts. The findings will inform our understanding of when to offer and how to optimise rehabilitation following surgery. Results will be published in an open access journal. The study raises no ethical issues. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015020806.