Prognostic models in COVID-19 infection that predict severity: a systematic review.

Current evidence on COVID-19 prognostic models is inconsistent and clinical applicability remains controversial. We performed a systematic review to summarize and critically appraise the available studies that have developed, assessed and/or validated prognostic models of COVID-19 predicting health outcomes. We searched six bibliographic databases to identify published articles that investigated univariable and multivariable prognostic models predicting adverse outcomes in adult COVID-19 patients, including intensive care unit (ICU) admission, intubation, high-flow nasal therapy (HFNT), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and mortality. We identified and assessed 314 eligible articles from more than 40 countries, with 152 of these studies presenting mortality, 66 progression to severe or critical illness, 35 mortality and ICU admission combined, 17 ICU admission only, while the remaining 44 studies reported prediction models for mechanical ventilation (MV) or a combination of multiple outcomes. The sample size of included studies varied from 11 to 7,704,171 participants, with a mean age ranging from 18 to 93 years. There were 353 prognostic models investigated, with area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.44 to 0.99. A great proportion of studies (61.5%, 193 out of 314) performed internal or external validation or replication. In 312 (99.4%) studies, prognostic models were reported to be at high risk of bias due to uncertainties and challenges surrounding methodological rigor, sampling, handling of missing data, failure to deal with overfitting and heterogeneous definitions of COVID-19 and severity outcomes. While several clinical prognostic models for COVID-19 have been described in the literature, they are limited in generalizability and/or applicability due to deficiencies in addressing fundamental statistical and methodological concerns. Future large, multi-centric and well-designed prognostic prospective studies are needed to clarify remaining uncertainties.

Desperate need for better management of Fournier's gangrene.

INTRODUCTION: To compare earlier and later patient groups with Fournier's gangrene, specifically with the incidence of rising antibiotic resistance rates in mind. Primary endpoints were to compare therapy, outcomes, and resistance rates. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multicentric, retrospective, multi-national study was performed. Two groups with different time frames of treatment were defined: Group 1 (n = 50) and Group 2 (n = 104). Demographics and outcomes were analysed using Student-t test, chi-square test, or Fisher exact test. Survival data were estimated using the Kaplan Meier method and compared by Log rank testing. RESULTS: There were no significant demographic differences. Nor was there any significant difference in therapy or outcomes in the groups except for the duration of intensive care unit treatment, which lasted a mean 6.3 days in Group 1 and 11.5 days in Group 2 (p = 0.018). Survival time did not improve over the years (p = 0.268). We fortunately did not observe an increased rate of multi-resistant organisms (p = 1.000). This study's limitations are mainly due to its retrospective study design. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing antibiotic resistance rates worldwide, it was not apparent in our population. But the situation for these patients is alarming, since final outcome failed to improve over the last ten years despite more intensive critical-care therapy.