Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Aug 1;22(1):664.
doi: 10.1186/s12879-022-07627-5.

Modelling of a triage scoring tool for SARS-COV-2 PCR testing in health-care workers: data from the first German COVID-19 Testing Unit in Munich

Affiliations

Modelling of a triage scoring tool for SARS-COV-2 PCR testing in health-care workers: data from the first German COVID-19 Testing Unit in Munich

Hannah Tuulikki Hohl et al. BMC Infect Dis. .

Abstract

Background: Numerous scoring tools have been developed for assessing the probability of SARS-COV-2 test positivity, though few being suitable or adapted for outpatient triage of health care workers.

Methods: We retrospectively analysed 3069 patient records of health care workers admitted to the COVID-19 Testing Unit of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität of Munich between January 27 and September 30, 2020, for real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis of naso- or oropharyngeal swabs. Variables for a multivariable logistic regression model were collected from self-completed case report forms and selected through stepwise backward selection. Internal validation was conducted by bootstrapping. We then created a weighted point-scoring system from logistic regression coefficients.

Results: 4076 (97.12%) negative and 121 (2.88%) positive test results were analysed. The majority were young (mean age: 38.0), female (69.8%) and asymptomatic (67.8%). Characteristics that correlated with PCR-positivity included close-contact professions (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists), flu-like symptoms (e.g., fever, rhinorrhoea, headache), abdominal symptoms (nausea/emesis, abdominal pain, diarrhoea), less days since symptom onset, and contact to a SARS-COV-2 positive index-case. Variables selected for the final model included symptoms (fever, cough, abdominal pain, anosmia/ageusia) and exposures (to SARS-COV-positive individuals and, specifically, to positive patients). Internal validation by bootstrapping yielded a corrected Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve of 76.43%. We present sensitivity and specificity at different prediction cut-off points. In a subgroup with further workup, asthma seems to have a protective effect with regard to testing result positivity and measured temperature was found to be less predictive than anamnestic fever.

Conclusions: We consider low threshold testing for health care workers a valuable strategy for infection control and are able to provide an easily applicable triage score for the assessment of the probability of infection in health care workers in case of resource scarcity.

Keywords: COVID-19; Epidemiology; Germany; Munich; Prediction model; Public health; SARS-COV-2; Triage.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare that they have no conflict or competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
7-day incidences per 100,000 inhabitants at the travel destination of tested returnees at the time of testing. Red lines: thresholds for public health measures in Germany
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Odds ratios (dark blue) plus 95% confidence interval (light blue) in univariable logistic regression of selected variables and COVID-19 test result with weekly growing dataset. For better readability, upper confidence interval values above 10 have been truncated (orange dots)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Frequency of patients with positive and negative SARS-COV2 test result by triage score (red/blue bars) and sensitivity and specificity at score cut-offs (green/orange bars). N.B.: For better readability, the frequency of patients is shown in log scale. The red lines indicate the chosen cut-off values for risk group-classification (see below)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. World Health Organisation. WHO coronavirus (COVID-19) dashboard. 2021. https://covid19.who.int/. Accessed 15 Mar 2022.
    1. Chowdhury AZ, Jomo KS. Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic in developing countries: lessons from selected countries of the global south. Development (Rome) 2020 doi: 10.1057/s41301-020-00256-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. World Health Organisation. Classification of Omicron (B.1.1.529): SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern. 2021. https://www.who.int/news/item/26-11-2021-classification-of-omicron-(b.1..... Accessed 15 Mar 2022.
    1. Wynants L, Van Calster B, Collins GS, Riley RD, Heinze G, Schuit E, et al. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of covid-19: systematic review and critical appraisal. BMJ. 2020;369:m1328. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1328. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Locquet M, Diep AN, Beaudart C, Dardenne N, Brabant C, Bruyère O, et al. A systematic review of prediction models to diagnose COVID-19 in adults admitted to healthcare centers. Arch Public Health. 2021;79(1):105. doi: 10.1186/s13690-021-00630-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed