From the authors

T. Verheij, J. Bont, E. Hak, A. Hoes

    Research output: Contribution to journalLetterAcademicpeer-review

    Abstract

    We would like to thank S. Teramoto and co-workers for the important issues they raised. While appraising their comments, it is important to make a distinction between the use of severity rules inside and outside hospital settings. Looking at the available literature, we think that the pneumonia severity index (PSI) and CURB-65 (Confusion, Urea >7 mmol·L−1, Respiratory rate ≥30 breaths·min−1, Blood pressure (systolic value <90 mmHg or diastolic value ≤60 mmHg)) are both valid and useful in hospital settings. However, it is an interesting suggestion to improve CURB-65 by introducing more detailed age groups in the score. In primary care, PSI and CURB-65 are less useful for various reasons. Regarding the predictive value of age, the results of our study 1 showed that age >80 yrs was a better predictor of outcome than age categories between 65–80 yrs. Probably as there are a lot of healthy individuals aged 65–80 yrs in primary care who have a low risk for poor outcome.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)478
    Number of pages1
    JournalEuropean Respiratory Journal
    Volume31
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1-Feb-2008

    Keywords

    • blood pressure
    • disease severity
    • human
    • letter
    • outcome assessment
    • Pneumonia Severity Index
    • priority journal
    • rating scale
    • risk factor

    Cite this