ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Understanding Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia: Experience From a Mediterranean Diagnostic Reference Centre.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ciliary Motility and Ultrastructure in Bronchial Epithelium of Lung Transplant Recipients with Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Special Issue: Rare Respiratory Diseases: A Personal and Public Health Issue.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- High-Speed Video Microscopy for Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Diagnosis: A Study of Ciliary Motility Variations with Time and Temperature.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Evaluation of a Clinical Index as a Predictive Tool for Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- IFT46 Expression in the Nasal Mucosa of Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Patients: Preliminary Study.Allergy & rhinology (Providence, R.I.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the lack of a gold standard diagnostic test, reference centres with experienced personnel and costly procedures are needed for primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) diagnostics. Diagnostic flowcharts always start with clinical symptoms. Therefore, the aim of this work is to define differential clinical criteria so that only patients clinically compatible with PCD are referred to reference centres. MATERIALS AND
methods18 variables from 476 Mediterranean patients with clinically suspicious PCD were collected. After analysing cilia function and ultrastructure, 89 individuals were diagnosed with PCD and 387 had a negative diagnosis. Simple logistic regression analysis, considering PCD as a dependent variable and the others as independent variables, was done. In order to define the variables that best explain PCD, a step-wise logistic regression model was defined. Aiming to classify individuals as PCD or PCD-like patients, based on variables included in the study, a classification and regression tree (CART) was designed. RESULTS AND
conclusionsSimple logistic regression analysis shows statistically significant association between age at the beginning of their symptomatology, periodicity, fertility, situs inversus, recurrent otitis, atelectasis, bronchiectasis, chronic productive cough, rhinorrea, rhinusinusitis and recurrent pneumonias, and PCD. The step-wise logistic regression model selected situs inversus, atelectasis, rhinorrea, chronic productive cough, bronchiectasis, recurrent pneumonias, and otitis as PCD predictive variables (82% sensitivity, 88% specificity, and 0.92 Area Under the Curve (AUC)). A decision tree was designed in order to classify new individuals based on pansinusitis, situs inversus, periodicity, rhinorrea, bronchiectasis, and chronic wet cough.
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.