Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32997893›Full record

ArticleClinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery2021

A prospective multicentre external validation study of the Liverpool Peritonsillar abscess Score (LPS) with a no-examination COVID-19 modification.

David Selwyn, Ding Yang, Elliot Heward, Ashwin Kerai, Elinor Thompson, Abulgasem Shommakhi, Scott Faulkner, Richard Siau, Hussein Walijee, Tom Hampton and 4 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery, 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A prospective multicentre external validation study of the Liverpool Peritonsillar abscess Score (LPS) with a no-examination COVID-19 modification.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2021
    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

14 authors.

David SelwynBradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0028-3859
Ding YangRoyal Stoke University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Elliot HewardStepping Hill Hospital, Stockport, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9692-646X
Ashwin KeraiArrowe Park Hospital, Wirral, UK.
Elinor ThompsonArrowe Park Hospital, Wirral, UK.
Abulgasem ShommakhiArrowe Park Hospital, Wirral, UK.
Scott FaulknerArrowe Park Hospital, Wirral, UK.
Richard SiauArrowe Park Hospital, Wirral, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6950-4026
Hussein WalijeeArrowe Park Hospital, Wirral, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6838-4499
Tom HamptonMersey ENT Research Collaborative (MERC), Merseyside, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6515-8058
Dorota ChudekRoyal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5174-8359
Supriya SingheraWythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, UK.
Waqas DinBradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1416-8181
Andrew S LauArrowe Park Hospital, Wirral, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6489-204X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOur primary aim was to validate the Liverpool Peritonsillar abscess Score (LPS) externally in a new patient cohort. Our secondary aim was to modify the LPS in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic to produce a no-examination variant for use in this instance.

designProspective multicentre external validation study.

settingSix different secondary care institutions across the United Kingdom.

participantsPatients over 16 years old who were referred to ENT with any uncomplicated sore throat such a tonsillitis or peritonsillar abscess (PTA).

main outcome measuresSensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for both the original LPS model and the modified model for COVID-19.

resultsThe LPS model had sensitivity and specificity calculated at 98% and 79%, respectively. The LPS has a high negative predictive value (NPV) of 99%. The positive predictive value (PPV) was slightly lower at 63%. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, including the area under the curve (AUROC), was 0.888 which indicates very good accuracy.

conclusionsExternal validation of the LPS against an independent geographically diverse population yields high NPV. This may support non-specialist colleagues who may have concerns about mis-diagnosing a PTA. The COVID-19 modification of the LPS has a similar NPV, which may be of use where routine oral examination is to be avoided during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Indexed as

Disease ManagementPandemicsSARS-CoV-2AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overComorbidityCOVID-19FemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPeritonsillar AbscessProspective StudiesROC CurvediagnosisdysphagiaPeritonsillar abscessswallowing

Identifiers

PMID32997893
PMCPMC7646663

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.