ArticleEBioMedicine2016
Enabling Precision Medicine With Digital Case Classification at the Point-of-Care.
Article in EBioMedicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- SARS-CoV-2 saliva testing using RT-PCR: a systematic review.International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases · 2022Pooled it
- Influenza and other respiratory viruses: standardizing disease severity in surveillance and clinical trials.Expert review of anti-infective therapy · 2017Pooled it
- Polish language questionnaires for monitoring athletes' health and classifying reported symptoms.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of different algorithms for lupus anticoagulant detection: a single-center experience.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- Rapid Evaluation of the XpertDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Article
- Tracking the temporal variation of COVID-19 surges through wastewater-based epidemiology during the peak of the pandemic: A six-month long study in Charlotte, North Carolina.The Science of the total environment · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Estimated Sensitivity Values of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Tests from Cross-sectional Data Warrant Caution Due to Unvalidated Model Assumptions.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2021Article
- Assessing sensitivity and reproducibility of RT-ddPCR and RT-qPCR for the quantification of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater.Journal of virological methods · 2021Article
- Advancing challenges in Paediatric Virology: An interview with Professor Barbara A. Rath, Co-founder and Chair of the Vienna Vaccine Safety Initiative.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2019Article
- Vienna Vaccine Safety Initiative.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2018Article
- Validation of Active Surveillance Testing for Clostridium difficile Colonization Using the cobas Cdiff Test.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
- Innovative Digital Tools and Surveillance Systems for the Timely Detection of Adverse Events at the Point of Care: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Drug safety · 2016Article
- Precision Medicine: The new era in medicine.EBioMedicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Infectious and inflammatory diseases of the central nervous system are difficult to identify early. Case definitions for aseptic meningitis, encephalitis, myelitis, and acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) are available, but rarely put to use. The VACC-Tool (Vienna Vaccine Safety Initiative Automated Case Classification-Tool) is a mobile application enabling immediate case ascertainment based on consensus criteria at the point-of-care. The VACC-Tool was validated in a quality management program in collaboration with the Robert-Koch-Institute. Results were compared to ICD-10 coding and retrospective analysis of electronic health records using the same case criteria. Of 68,921 patients attending the emergency room in 10/2010-06/2013, 11,575 were hospitalized, with 521 eligible patients (mean age: 7.6 years) entering the quality management program. Using the VACC-Tool at the point-of-care, 180/521 cases were classified successfully and 194/521 ruled out with certainty. Of the 180 confirmed cases, 116 had been missed by ICD-10 coding, 38 misclassified. By retrospective application of the same case criteria, 33 cases were missed. Encephalitis and ADEM cases were most likely missed or misclassified. The VACC-Tool enables physicians to ask the right questions at the right time, thereby classifying cases consistently and accurately, facilitating translational research. Future applications will alert physicians when additional diagnostic procedures are required.
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.