Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29632005›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2018

Development of a prediction tool for patients presenting with acute cough in primary care: a prognostic study spanning six European countries.

Robin Bruyndonckx, Niel Hens, Theo Jm Verheij, Marc Aerts, Margareta Ieven, Christopher C Butler, Paul Little, Herman Goossens, Samuel Coenen, GRACE project group

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Robin BruyndonckxHasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium, and University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Niel HensHasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium, and University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Theo Jm VerheijUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Marc AertsHasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium.
Margareta IevenCentre for General Practice, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Christopher C ButlerCardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Paul LittleUniversity of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Herman GoossensCentre for General Practice, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Samuel CoenenCentre for General Practice, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
GRACE project group
University of Antwerp · BECardiff University · GBHasselt University · BEUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Southampton · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate prediction of the course of an acute cough episode could curb antibiotic overprescribing, but is still a major challenge in primary care.

aimThe authors set out to develop a new prediction rule for poor outcome (re-consultation with new or worsened symptoms, or hospital admission) in adults presenting to primary care with acute cough. DESIGN AND

settingData were collected from 2604 adults presenting to primary care with acute cough or symptoms suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) within the Genomics to combat Resistance against Antibiotics in Community-acquired LRTI in Europe (GRACE; www.grace-lrti.org) Network of Excellence.

methodImportant signs and symptoms for the new prediction rule were found by combining random forest and logistic regression modelling. Performance to predict poor outcome in acute cough patients was compared with that of existing prediction rules, using the models' area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC), and any improvement obtained by including additional test results (C-reactive protein [CRP], blood urea nitrogen [BUN], chest radiography, or aetiology) was evaluated using the same methodology.

resultsThe new prediction rule, included the baseline Risk of poor outcome, Interference with daily activities, number of years stopped Smoking (> or <45 years), severity of Sputum, presence of Crackles, and diastolic blood pressure (> or <85 mmHg) (RISSC85). Though performance of RISSC85 was moderate (sensitivity 62%, specificity 59%, positive predictive value 27%, negative predictive value 86%, AUC 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.61 to 0.67), it outperformed all existing prediction rules used today (highest AUC 0.53, 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.56), and could not be significantly improved by including additional test results (highest AUC 0.64, 95% CI = 0.62 to 0.68).

conclusionThe new prediction rule outperforms all existing alternatives in predicting poor outcome in adult patients presenting to primary care with acute cough and could not be improved by including additional test results.

Indexed as

Primary Health CareAcute DiseaseAnti-Bacterial AgentsCoughDiagnostic Tests, RoutineEuropeHumansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Predictive Value of TestsPrognosisRespiratory Tract InfectionsROC CurveSymptom AssessmentAnti-Bacterial Agentsacute coughclinical prediction ruleprimary careprognosis

Identifiers

PMID29632005
PMCPMC5916081
OpenAlexW2796834586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.