Prognostic accuracy of eight triage scores in suspected COVID-19 in an Emergency Department low-income setting: An observational cohort study

Introduction: Previous studies deriving and validating triage scores for patients with suspected COVID-19 in Emergency Department settings have been conducted in high- or middle -income settings. We assessed eight triage scores' accuracy for death or organ support in patients with suspected COVID-19 in Sudan. Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study using Covid-19 registry data from eight emergency unit isolation centres in Khartoum State, Sudan. We assessed performance of eight triage scores including: PRIEST, LMIC-PRIEST, NEWS2, TEWS, the WHO algorithm, CRB-65, Quick COVID-19 Severity Index and PMEWS in suspected COVID-19. A composite primary outcome included death, ventilation or ICU admission. Results: In total 874 (33.84 %, 95 % CI:32.04 % to 35.69 %) of 2,583 patients died, required intubation/noninvasive ventilation or HDU/ICU admission . All risk -stratification scores assessed had worse estimated discrimination in this setting, compared to studies conducted in higher -income settings: C -statistic range for primary outcome: 0.56-0.64. At previously recommended thresholds NEWS2, PRIEST and LMIC-PRIEST had high estimated sensitivities (>= 0.95) for the primary outcome. However, the high baseline risk meant that lowrisk patients identified at these thresholds still had a between 8 % and 17 % risk of death, ventilation or ICU admission. Conclusion: None of the triage scores assessed demonstrated sufficient accuracy to be used clinically. This is likely due to differences in the health care system and population (23 % of patients died) compared to higher -income settings in which the scores were developed. Risk -stratification scores developed in this setting are needed to provide the necessary accuracy to aid triage of patients with suspected COVID-19.