ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2020
Validation of the Pneumocystis pneumonia score in haematology patients with acute respiratory failure.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a clinical risk score for the prediction of Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia in hospitalised patients.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Epidemiology, prevalence, and associated factors of oral candidiasis in HIV patients from southwest Iran in post-highly active antiretroviral therapy era.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) is an important cause of acute respiratory failure (ARF) in immunocompromised patients, yet no actual clinical tool suitably identifies patients at risk. Recently, a multivariable prediction model has been proposed for haematology patients with ARF requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission to assess the risk of PCP (PCP score). However, it has not yet been validated externally.
methodsTo validate the PCP score, a retrospective cohort study was conducted in two large designated haematology centres in Korea. One-hundred and forty haematology patients with ARF were admitted to ICU. They underwent aetiologic evaluations between July 2016 and June 2019. The predictive ability of the score was assessed with the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for both the discrimination and calibration of the score.
resultsAmong the 141 patients, 13 (9.2%) were finally diagnosed of PCP. Although the median of PCP score in PCP group was higher than in non-PCP group (3.0 [interquartile range 0.0-4.0] vs. 2.0 [0.5-4.0]), the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.679). The area under the ROC curve of the PCP score in our cohort was 0.535 (95% CI, 0.449-0.620), indicating no discriminatory ability. When using a cut-off of 3.0 the score, the result was 38.5% (95% CI, 13.9-68.4) sensitive and 7.03% (95% CI, 61.6-78.1) specific. The negative predictive value was 58.8% and positive predictive value was 59.8% for a 10% prevalence of PCP.
conclusionsIn this study, the PCP score was not useful to predict the risk of PCP in haematology patients with ARF. Further prospective validation studies are needed to validate the score's use in routine clinical practice for the early diagnosis of PCP in haematology patients.
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.