ArticleJournal of general and family medicine2020
Physicians' prediction for the assessment of atypical pathogens in respiratory tract infections.
Article in Journal of general and family 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.
- Predicting Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Chlamydophila pneumoniae in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) pneumonia: epidemiological study of respiratory tract infection using multiplex PCR assays.Internal and emergency medicine · 2021Article
- Physicians' prediction for the assessment of atypical pathogens in respiratory tract infections.Journal of general and family medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with acute respiratory tract infections are frequently prescribed antimicrobials despite high rates of virus detection. Physicians may overprescribe antimicrobials owing to the concern of bacterial infections, including those because of atypical pathogens. We investigated the accuracy of clinical predictions concerning atypical pathogen infections.
methodsWe prospectively enrolled adult patients who presented with a fever and cough in outpatient clinics between December 2016 and August 2018. After taking a history and performing physical examinations, physicians predicted the possibility of respiratory infections because of atypical pathogens. Disease probabilities were categorized into 3 grades (high: ≥50%, intermediate: 20% ≥ and <50%, and low: <20%) and were judged by physicians who were taking care of the patients. Confirmation of atypical pathogens was performed by comprehensive molecular analyses of respiratory samples.
resultsAtypical pathogens were detected in 21 of 210 patients. A close contact history (odds ratio [OR]: 11.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.4-53.5) and the presence of pneumonia (OR: 12.9, CI: 4.3-39.2) were associated with the detections. Atypical pathogens were detected in 32.3% of high-probability cases (10/31), while atypical pathogens were only detected in 8.8% of intermediate-probability cases (8/91) and 3.4% of low-probability cases (3/88) (
conclusionsThe current study indicates that physicians' predictions were associated with the detection of atypical pathogens; however, overestimation was observed.
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.