Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23015034›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2012

Clinicians' gut feeling about serious infections in children: observational study.

Ann Van den Bruel, Matthew Thompson, Frank Buntinx, David Mant

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05222711 (The Use of a Monitoring Device by General Practitioners During Out-of-hours Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 75 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05222711 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

The Use of a Monitoring Device by General Practitioners During Out-of-hours Care: Protocol of a Prospective Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorKU LeuvenRan2022 to 2022Enrolled866ConditionsEmergencies, Heart Failure, Pulmonary Embolism, Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseArmsUse of the PICO(TM) monitoring device
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

75 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Understanding the role of GPs' gut feelings in diagnosing cancer in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing evidence.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Guideline
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Physicians' appraisal of parental concerns: a qualitative assessment.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The linguistic validation of the gut feelings questionnaire in Turkish.The European journal of general practice · 2023
    Article
  14. How patients in general practice voice and value their gut feelings about health: a qualitative interview study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ann Van den BruelDepartment of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK. ann.vandenbruel@phc.ox.ac.uk
Matthew Thompson
Frank Buntinx
David Mant

Funding

Department of Health CDF-2011-04-052Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10347
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the basis and added value of clinicians' "gut feeling" that infections in children are more serious than suggested by clinical assessment.

designObservational study.

settingPrimary care setting, Flanders, Belgium.

participantsConsecutive series of 3890 children and young people aged 0-16 years presenting in primary care.

main outcome measuresPresenting features, clinical assessment, doctors' intuitive response at first contact with children in primary care, and any subsequent diagnosis of serious infection determined from hospital records.

resultsOf the 3369 children and young people assessed clinically as having a non-severe illness, six (0.2%) were subsequently admitted to hospital with a serious infection. Intuition that something was wrong despite the clinical assessment of non-severe illness substantially increased the risk of serious illness (likelihood ratio 25.5, 95% confidence interval 7.9 to 82.0) and acting on this gut feeling had the potential to prevent two of the six cases being missed (33%, 95% confidence interval 4.0% to 100%) at a cost of 44 false alarms (1.3%, 95% confidence interval 0.95% to 1.75%). The clinical features most strongly associated with gut feeling were the children's overall response (drowsiness, no laughing), abnormal breathing, weight loss, and convulsions. The strongest contextual factor was the parents' concern that the illness was different from their previous experience (odds ratio 36.3, 95% confidence interval 12.3 to 107).

conclusionsA gut feeling about the seriousness of illness in children is an instinctive response by clinicians to the concerns of the parents and the appearance of the children. It should trigger action such as seeking a second opinion or further investigations. The observed association between intuition and clinical markers of serious infection means that by reflecting on the genesis of their gut feeling, clinicians should be able to hone their clinical skills.

Indexed as

AdolescentChildChild, PreschoolDiagnosis, DifferentialEmotionsFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInfectionsMalePhysiciansPrimary Health CareProspective StudiesRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID23015034
PMCPMC3458229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.