ArticleWorld journal of pediatrics : WJP2017
Exhaustive mathematical analysis of simple clinical measurements for childhood pneumonia diagnosis.
Article in World journal of pediatrics : WJP, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling the transmission dynamics of delayed pneumonia-like diseases with a sensitivity of parameters.Advances in difference equations · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPneumonia is the leading cause of mortality for children below 5 years of age. The majority of these occur in poor countries with limited access to diagnosis. The World Health Organization (WHO) criterion for pneumonia is the de facto method for diagnosis. It is designed targeting a high sensitivity and uses easy to measure parameters. The WHO criterion has poor specificity.
methodsWe propose a method using common measurements (including the WHO parameters) to diagnose pneumonia at high sensitivity and specificity. Seventeen clinical features obtained from 134 subjects were used to create a series of logistic regression models. We started with one feature at a time, and continued building models with increasing number of features until we exhausted all possible combinations. We used a k-fold cross validation method to measure the performance of the models.
resultsThe sensitivity of our method was comparable to that of the WHO criterion but the specificity was 84%-655% higher. In the 2-11 month age group, the WHO criteria had a sensitivity and specificity of 92.0%±11.6% and 38.1%±18.5%, respectively. Our best model (using the existence of a runny nose, the number of days with runny nose, breathing rate and temperature) performed at a sensitivity of 91.3%±13.0% and specificity of 70.2%±22.80%. In the 12-60 month age group, the WHO algorithm gave a sensitivity of 95.7%±7.6% at a specificity of 9.8%±13.1%, while our corresponding sensitivity and specificity were 94.0%±12.1% and 74.0%±23.3%, respectively (using fever, number of days with cough, heart rate and chest in-drawing).
conclusionsThe WHO algorithm can be improved through mathematical analysis of clinical observations and measurements routinely made in the field. The method is simple and easy to implement on a mobile phone. Our method allows the freedom to pick the best model in any arbitrary field scenario (e.g., when an oximeter is not available).
Indexed as
Identifiers
28332104What 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.