ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2010
Emergency Department Septic Screening in Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and Non-RSV Bronchiolitis.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Lung ultrasound allows for earlier diagnosis of bronchiolitis than auscultation: an animal experiment and human case series.Journal of ultrasound · 2022Article
- Which ICD-9-CM codes should be used for bronchiolitis research?BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Derivation of Candidate Clinical Decision Rules to Identify Infants at Risk for Central Apnea.Pediatrics · 2015Observational
- Impact analysis of an evidence-based guideline on diagnosis of urinary tract infection in infants and young children with unexplained fever.European journal of pediatrics · 2014Observational
- Is the interpretation of rapid antigen testing for respiratory syncytial virus as simple as positive or negative?Emergency medicine journal : EMJ · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo identify factors associated with culture-proven serious bacterial infection (SBI) and positive emergency department septic screening (EDSS) tests in children with bronchiolitis and to identify factors associated with the performance of EDSS.
methodsWe reviewed an existing study database of patients with bronchiolitis. We defined a positive EDSS as urine with >/=10 WBC per high power field or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) with >/=10 WBC per high power field (>25 WBC in neonates), or if organisms were identified on gram stain. We defined SBI as significant growth of an accepted pathogen in blood, urine or CSF. Our composite endpoint was positive if either of these was positive. The decision to perform testing was modeled using modified Poisson regression; the presence of the combined outcome was modeled using logistic regression modified for rare events.
resultsWe studied 640 children. Testing was performed in 199/640 (31.1%). These tended to be younger than two months RR 2.69 (95% CI 2.11, 3.44), febrile RR 2.01 (95% CI 1.58, 2.55), more dehydrated RR 1.50 (95% CI 1.28, 1.75) and had more severe chest wall retractions RR 1.54 (95% CI 1.22, 1.94). Only 11/640(1.7%) had a positive EDSS or SBI. Younger age (OR 0.67 per month; 95% CI 0.45, 0.99) and a negative RSV antigen test (OR 6.22; 95% CI 1.30, 29.85) were associated with the composite endpoint.
conclusionTesting was more likely to be performed in children younger than two months of age, and in those who were febrile, dehydrated, and had more severe chest wall retractions. A positive EDSS or SBI was rare occurring in younger infants with non-RSV bronchiolitis.
Identifiers
20411078PMC2850856W1560321035What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.