Observational studyPediatrics2015
Derivation of Candidate Clinical Decision Rules to Identify Infants at Risk for Central Apnea.
Observational study in Pediatrics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Lung ultrasound allows for earlier diagnosis of bronchiolitis than auscultation: an animal experiment and human case series.Journal of ultrasound · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCentral apnea complicates, and may be the presenting complaint in, bronchiolitis. Our objective was to prospectively derive candidate clinical decision rules (CDRs) to identify infants in the emergency department (ED) who are at risk for central apnea.
methodsWe conducted a prospective observational study over 8 years. The primary outcome was central apnea subsequent to the initial ED visit. Infants were enrolled if they presented with central apnea or bronchiolitis. We excluded infants with obstructive apnea, neonatal jaundice, trauma, or suspected sepsis. We developed 3 candidate CDRs by using 3 techniques: (1) Poisson regression clustered on the individual, (2) classification and regression tree analysis (CART), and (3) a random forest (RF).
resultsWe analyzed 990 ED visits for 892 infants. Central apnea subsequently occurred in the hospital in 41 (5%) patients. Parental report of apnea, previous history of apnea, congenital heart disease, birth weight ≤2.5 kg, lower weight, and age ≤6 weeks all identified a group at high risk for subsequent central apnea. All CDRs and RFs were 100% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI] 91%-100%) and had a negative predictive value of 100% (95% CI 99%-100%) for the subsequent apnea. Specificity ranged from 61% to 65% (95% CI 58%-68%) for CDRs based on Poisson models; 65% to 77% (95% CI 62%-90%) for CART; and 81% to 91% (95% CI 78%-92%) for RF models.
conclusionsAll candidate CDRs had a negative predictive value of 100% for subsequent central apnea.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.