Validity of British Thoracic Society guidance (the CRB-65 rule) for predicting the severity of pneumonia in general practice: systematic review and meta-analysis.

HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Medical School, Dublin, Ireland.
British Journal of General Practice (Impact Factor: 2.03). 10/2010; 60(579):e423-33. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X532422
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The CRB-65 score is a clinical prediction rule that grades the severity of community-acquired pneumonia in terms of 30-day mortality.
The study sought to validate CRB-65 and assess its clinical value in community and hospital settings.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of validation studies of CRB-65.
Medline (1966 to June 2009), Embase (1988 to November 2008), British Nursing Index (BNI) and PsychINFO were searched, using a diagnostic accuracy search filter combined with subject-specific terms. The derived (index) rule was used as a predictive model and applied to all validation studies. Comparison was made between the observed and predicted number of deaths stratified by risk group (low, intermediate, and high) and setting of care (community or hospital). Pooled results are presented as risk ratios (RRs) in terms of over-prediction (RR>1) or under-prediction (RR<1) of 30-day mortality.
Fourteen validation studies totalling 397 875 patients are included. CRB-65 performs well in hospitalised patients, particularly in those classified as intermediate (RR 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.71 to 1.17) or high risk (RR 1.01, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.16). In community settings, CRB-65 over-predicts the probability of 30-day mortality across all strata of predicted risk, low (RR 9.41, 95% CI = 1.75 to 50.66), intermediate (RR 4.84, 95% CI = 2.61 to 8.69), and high (RR 1.58, 95% CI = 0.59 to 4.19).
CRB-65 performs well in stratifying severity of pneumonia and resultant 30-day mortality in hospital settings. In community settings, CRB-65 appears to over-predict the probability of 30-day mortality across all strata of predicted risk. Caution is needed when applying CRB-65 to patients in general practice.


Available from: Borislav D Dimitrov, Mar 31, 2015
  • JAMA Internal Medicine 03/2014; 174(5). DOI:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13808 · 13.25 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Addition of assessment of comorbid diseases (‘D’) and oxygen saturation (‘S’) to the CRB-65 score has been recommended to improve its accuracy for risk stratification in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). The aim of the present study was to validate the resulting DS-CRB-65 score in a large cohort of patients with CAP.MethodsA total of 4432 patients prospectively enrolled in the CAPNETZ cohort were included in the present study. Predefined endpoints were 28-day mortality, requirement for mechanical ventilation or vasopressors (MV/VS) and requirement for MV/VS or intensive care unit admission (MV/VS/ICU). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the accuracy of the CRB-65 score and the addition of D (extra-pulmonary comorbidities) and S (oxygen saturation <90% or partial pressure of oxygen <8 kPa). Binary logistic regression and the method of Hanley and McNeil were used to compare the criteria.ResultsThe mortality rate was 4.0%, and 4.2% of patients required MV/VS and 6.6% required MV/VS/ICU. After multivariate analysis, D and S independently added to the CRB-65 criteria for mortality prediction, but only S improved prediction of MV/VS and MV/VS/ICU (P < 0.001 for both). The area under the curve of the CRB-65 score was significantly improved by adding D and S for all endpoints (P < 0.02). Among patients who died or required MV/VS despite a CRB-65 score of 0, 64–80% would have been identified by the DS-CRB-65 score.Conclusions The addition of assessment of oxygenation and comorbidities significantly improved the prognostic accuracy of the CRB-65 score. Consequently, the DS-CRB-65 score may have a useful role in risk stratification algorithms for CAP.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Internal Medicine 01/2015; DOI:10.1111/joim.12349 · 5.79 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study compares the ability of two simpler severity rules (classical CRB65 vs. proposed CORB75) in predicting short-term mortality in elderly patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). A population-based study was undertaken involving 610 patients ≥65 years old with radiographically confirmed CAP diagnosed between 2008 and 2011 in Tarragona, Spain (350 cases in the derivation cohort, 260 cases in the validation cohort). Severity rules were calculated at the time of diagnosis, and 30-day mortality was considered as the dependent variable. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) was used to compare the discriminative power of the severity rules. Eighty deaths (46 in the derivation and 34 in the validation cohorts) were observed, which gives a mortality rate of 13.1 % (15.6 % for hospitalized and 3.3 % for outpatient cases). After multivariable analyses, besides CRB (confusion, respiration rate ≥30/min, systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg or diastolic ≤60 mmHg), peripheral oxygen saturation (≤90 %) and age ≥75 years appeared to be associated with increasing 30-day mortality in the derivation cohort. The model showed adequate calibration for the derivation and validation cohorts. A modified CORB75 scoring system (similar to the classical CRB65, but adding oxygen saturation and increasing the age to 75 years) was constructed. The AUC statistics for predicting mortality in the derivation and validation cohorts were 0.79 and 0.82, respectively. In the derivation cohort, a CORB75 score ≥2 showed 78.3 % sensitivity and 65.5 % specificity for mortality (in the validation cohort, these were 82.4 and 71.7 %, respectively). The proposed CORB75 scoring system has good discriminative power in predicting short-term mortality among elderly people with CAP, which supports its use for severity assessment of these patients in primary care.
    Infection 11/2013; DOI:10.1007/s15010-013-0565-1 · 2.86 Impact Factor