ArticleAnnals of family medicine2017
Proposed Clinical Decision Rules to Diagnose Acute Rhinosinusitis Among Adults in Primary Care.
Article in Annals of family medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical gestalt to diagnose pneumonia, sinusitis, and pharyngitis: a meta-analysis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2019Pooled it
- Antibiotics for acute rhinosinusitis in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Association of C-reactive protein with cause, duration and severity of lower respiratory infections in primary care: a prospective cohort study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2025Article
- Moving from a pilot study to large pragmatic trial in primary care settings: A study on acute rhinosinusitis.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Article
- Gas Monitoring in Human Frontal Sinuses-Stability Considerations and Gas Exchange Studies.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Proposed clinical indicators for efficient screening and testing for COVID-19 infection using Classification and Regression Trees (CART) analysis.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2021Article
- Article
- Accuracy of Signs and Symptoms for the Diagnosis of Acute Rhinosinusitis and Acute Bacterial Rhinosinusitis.Annals of family medicine · 2019Review
- C-reactive protein: guiding antibiotic prescribing decisions at the point of care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018Article
- Limiting Antibiotic Use in Acute Sinusitis: Partly a Matter of Vocabulary?Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, we sought to develop a clinical decision rule for the diagnosis of acute rhinosinusitis and acute bacterial rhinosinusitis.
methodsMultivariate analysis and classification and regression tree (CART) analysis were used to develop clinical decision rules for the diagnosis of acute rhinosinusitis, defined using 3 different reference standards (purulent antral puncture fluid or abnormal finding on a computed tomographic (CT) scan; for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, we used a positive bacterial culture of antral fluid). Signs, symptoms, C-reactive protein (CRP), and reference standard tests were prospectively recorded in 175 Danish patients aged 18 to 65 years seeking care for suspected acute rhinosinusitis. For each reference standard, we developed 2 clinical decision rules: a point score based on a logistic regression model and an algorithm based on a CART model. We identified low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups for acute rhinosinusitis or acute bacterial rhinosinusitis for each clinical decision rule.
resultsThe point scores each had between 5 and 6 predictors, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC) between 0.721 and 0.767. For positive bacterial culture as the reference standard, low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups had a 16%, 49%, and 73% likelihood of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, respectively. CART models had an AUROCC ranging from 0.783 to 0.827. For positive bacterial culture as the reference standard, low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups had a likelihood of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis of 6%, 31%, and 59% respectively.
conclusionsWe have developed a series of clinical decision rules integrating signs, symptoms, and CRP to diagnose acute rhinosinusitis and acute bacterial rhinosinusitis with good accuracy. They now require prospective validation and an assessment of their effect on clinical and process outcomes.
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.