ArticlePloS one2017
Efficiency of a clinical prediction model for selective rapid testing in children with pharyngitis: A prospective, multicenter study.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Stratification of Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis Children Using Unsupervised Learning.Cureus · 2024Article
- Navigating performance measures for ambulatory antimicrobial stewardship: a review of HEDIS® and other metrics the steward should know.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2024Review
- Identifying Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis in Children Through Clinical Variables Using Machine Learning.Cureus · 2023Article
- Rapid streptococcal pharyngitis testing and antibiotic prescribing before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is controversy whether physicians can rely on signs and symptoms to select children with pharyngitis who should undergo a rapid antigen detection test (RADT) for group A streptococcus (GAS). Our objective was to evaluate the efficiency of signs and symptoms in selectively testing children with pharyngitis. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this multicenter, prospective, cross-sectional study, French primary care physicians collected clinical data and double throat swabs from 676 consecutive children with pharyngitis; the first swab was used for the RADT and the second was used for a throat culture (reference standard). We developed a logistic regression model combining signs and symptoms with GAS as the outcome. We then derived a model-based selective testing strategy, assuming that children with low and high calculated probability of GAS (<0.12 and >0.85) would be managed without the RADT. Main outcomes and measures were performance of the model (c-index and calibration) and efficiency of the model-based strategy (proportion of participants in whom RADT could be avoided).
resultsThroat culture was positive for GAS in 280 participants (41.4%). Out of 17 candidate signs and symptoms, eight were retained in the prediction model. The model had an optimism-corrected c-index of 0.73; calibration of the model was good. With the model-based strategy, RADT could be avoided in 6.6% of participants (95% confidence interval 4.7% to 8.5%), as compared to a RADT-for-all strategy.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated that relying on signs and symptoms for selectively testing children with pharyngitis is not efficient. We recommend using a RADT in all children with pharyngitis.
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.