Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32990325›Full record

ArticleClinical and experimental immunology2021

Analysis of scoring systems for primary immunodeficiency diagnosis in adult immunology clinics.

K Toms, E Gkrania-Klotsas, D Kumararatne

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and experimental immunology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

K TomsSchool of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4704-2334
E Gkrania-KlotsasInfectious Diseases, Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK.
D KumararatneClinical Immunology, Cambridge University Hospitals, Cambridge, UK.
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0701652
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Failure to spot the signs of primary immunodeficiency (PID) often results in delayed diagnosis. Scoring systems to identify PID exist, such as the immunodeficiency disease-related (IDR) score. This research aims to analyse and improve the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the IDR scoring system in a small preselected group of adult patients referred to immunology with clinical suspicion of a PID. Records of all patients presenting for the first time to an adult immunology clinic in 2018 at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, were scored using the unmodified IDR score and modified versions of it. Included records were searched for a subsequent diagnosis of PID, and the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the scoring systems were analysed. Of 400 patients, 213 were excluded: 141 due to secondary immunodeficiency, 69 due to no clinical suspicion of a PID, and hence no investigation for PID, and three due to ongoing diagnostic investigations. Of 187 included patients, 71 were found to have a clinically significant PID. The unmodified IDR score was useful in discriminating between those with and without PID. Modification of the scoring system with seven additional criteria improved the sensitivity and specificity for PID diagnosis to the greatest extent. A modified IDR score with seven additional criteria validated in adults referred to immunology with suspicion of a PID could be used clinically to aid PID diagnosis, although further validation in different patient cohorts is required before it is used in other contexts.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansImmunologic Deficiency SyndromesMalediagnosisIDR scoreinfectionprimary immunodeficiency

Identifiers

PMID32990325
PMCPMC7744492
OpenAlexW3090612805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.