Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26918859›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

External Validation of Prediction Models for Pneumonia in Primary Care Patients with Lower Respiratory Tract Infection: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.

Alwin Schierenberg, Margaretha C Minnaard, Rogier M Hopstaken, Alma C van de Pol, Berna D L Broekhuizen, Niek J de Wit, Johannes B Reitsma, Saskia F van Vugt, Aleida W Graffelman, Hasse Melbye and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.

Alwin SchierenbergJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Margaretha C MinnaardJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Rogier M HopstakenSaltro Diagnostic Center for Primary Care, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Alma C van de PolJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Berna D L BroekhuizenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Niek J de WitJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Johannes B ReitsmaJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Saskia F van VugtJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Aleida W GraffelmanDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Hasse MelbyeDepartment of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway.
Timothy H RainerChinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Johann SteurerHorten Centre for Patient Oriented Research and Knowledge Transfer, University Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Anette HolmDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Ralph GonzalesDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, United States of America.
Geert-Jan DinantDepartment of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Joris A H de GrootJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Theo J M VerheijJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLChinese University of Hong Kong · CNLeiden University Medical Center · NLMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLOdense University Hospital · DKUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NOUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPneumonia remains difficult to diagnose in primary care. Prediction models based on signs and symptoms (S&S) serve to minimize the diagnostic uncertainty. External validation of these models is essential before implementation into routine practice. In this study all published S&S models for prediction of pneumonia in primary care were externally validated in the individual patient data (IPD) of previously performed diagnostic studies. METHODS AND

findingsS&S models for diagnosing pneumonia in adults presenting to primary care with lower respiratory tract infection and IPD for validation were identified through a systematical search. Six prediction models and IPD of eight diagnostic studies (N total = 5308, prevalence pneumonia 12%) were included. Models were assessed on discrimination and calibration. Discrimination was measured using the pooled Area Under the Curve (AUC) and delta AUC, representing the performance of an individual model relative to the average dataset performance. Prediction models by van Vugt et al. and Heckerling et al. demonstrated the highest pooled AUC of 0.79 (95% CI 0.74-0.85) and 0.72 (0.68-0.76), respectively. Other models by Diehr et al., Singal et al., Melbye et al., and Hopstaken et al. demonstrated pooled AUCs of 0.65 (0.61-0.68), 0.64 (0.61-0.67), 0.56 (0.49-0.63) and 0.53 (0.5-0.56), respectively. A similar ranking was present based on the delta AUCs of the models. Calibration demonstrated close agreement of observed and predicted probabilities in the models by van Vugt et al. and Singal et al., other models lacked such correspondence. The absence of predictors in the IPD on dataset level hampered a systematical comparison of model performance and could be a limitation to the study.

conclusionsThe model by van Vugt et al. demonstrated the highest discriminative accuracy coupled with reasonable to good calibration across the IPD of different study populations. This model is therefore the main candidate for primary care use.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalPrimary Health CareArea Under CurveCalibrationDatabases as TopicHumansPneumoniaProbabilityReproducibility of ResultsROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID26918859
PMCPMC4769284
OpenAlexW2279004762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.