Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31917796›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2020

Development and Validation of a simple score for diagnosis of Leptospirosis at outpatient departments.

Nidhikul Temeiam, Sutthi Jareinpituk, Phichayut Phinyo, Jayanton Patumanond, Nattachai Srisawat

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Leptospirosis.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Nidhikul TemeiamDepartment of Epidemiology, Faculty of Public Health, Mahidol University, Thailand.
Sutthi JareinpitukDepartment of Epidemiology, Faculty of Public Health, Mahidol University, Thailand.
Phichayut PhinyoCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Clinical Statistics, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.
Jayanton PatumanondCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Clinical Statistics, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.
Nattachai SrisawatDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, and King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-8544-8132
Chiang Mai University · THMahidol University · THChulalongkorn University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLeptospirosis is an important zoonotic disease within the tropics. Diagnosing leptospirosis is a clinical obstacle, as clinical presentations are similar to other tropical infectious diseases. Available serological tests are often insensitive and not cost-effective. Many clinical diagnostic scorings had been developed but most were based on hospitalized patients, and wound not be suitable for use in suspected patients in setting of ambulatory care.

objectivesTo develop and internal validate multivariable diagnostic prediction score of leptospirosis in patients suspicious of leptospirosis at out-patient clinics of community hospitals. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe performed a prospective, multisite diagnostic prediction research with development of a diagnostic score. The development cohort was based on patients suspicious of leptospirosis who visited five community hospitals in Si Sa Ket province, Thailand during December 2017 to November 2018. Leptospirosis confirmed cases were defined when one of the three standard confirmatory tests was positive. Multivariable logistic regression was used for score derivation. Test of AuROC equality was done to compare diagnostic performance of the newly derived score and conventional WHO score.

resultsA total of 262 leptospirosis suspicious patients were enrolled. Eighty-two patients (31.5%) were leptospirosis confirmed cases. Five final predictors remained within the reduced logistic model which were history of exposure to wet ground at workplace, history of contact water reservoir used by animal, urine protein and urine blood positive from dipstick test, and neutrophil count from CBC ≥80%. The OPD score diagnostic performance was AuROC 0.72 (95%CI 0.65-0.79). Test of equality revealed significant differences of AuROC between the OPD and WHO score (0.72 vs 0.62, p-value 0.014). Patients were categorized into low and high probability of having leptospirosis at score point of 3.5 with sensitivity 72.4% and specificity 61.7%.

conclusionsThis study developed and internal validated the OPD score. This clinical risk score could be one of the important tools for diagnosis of leptospirosis at the outpatient clinic.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareAdultAgedAnimalsFemaleHumansLeptospirosisMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsThailandZoonoses

Identifiers

PMID31917796
PMCPMC6975559
OpenAlexW3000351853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.