ArticleAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2021
Inter-rater reliability and prospective validation of a clinical prediction rule for SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Article in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2021. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Inter-rater reliability and prospective validation of a clinical prediction rule for SARS-CoV-2 infection.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAccurate estimation of the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on bedside data alone has importance to emergency department (ED) operations and throughput. The 13-item CORC (COVID [or coronavirus] Rule-out Criteria) rule had good overall diagnostic accuracy in retrospective derivation and validation. The objective of this study was to prospectively test the inter-rater reliability and diagnostic accuracy of the CORC score and rule (score ≤ 0 negative, > 0 positive) and compare the CORC rule performance with physician gestalt.
methodsThis noninterventional study was conducted at an urban academic ED from February 2021 to March 2021. Two practitioners were approached by research coordinators and asked to independently complete a form capturing the CORC criteria for their shared patient and their gestalt binary prediction of the SARS-CoV-2 test result and confidence (0%-100%). The criterion standard for SARS-CoV-2 was from reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction performed on a nasopharyngeal swab. The primary analysis was from weighted Cohen's kappa and likelihood ratios (LRs).
resultsFor 928 patients, agreement between observers was good for the total CORC score, κ = 0.613 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.579-0.646), and for the CORC rule, κ = 0.644 (95% CI = 0.591-0.697). The agreement for clinician gestalt binary determination of SARs-CoV-2 status was κ = 0.534 (95% CI = 0.437-0.632) with median confidence of 76% (first-third quartile = 66-88.5). For 425 patients who had the criterion standard, a negative CORC rule (both observers scored CORC < 0), the sensitivity was 88%, and specificity was 51%, with a negative LR (LR-) of 0.24 (95% CI = 0.10-0.50). Among patients with a mean CORC score of >4, the prevalence of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test was 58% (95% CI = 28%-85%) and positive LR was 13.1 (95% CI = 4.5-37.2). Clinician gestalt demonstrated a sensitivity of 51% and specificity of 86% with a LR- of 0.57 (95% CI = 0.39-0.74).
conclusionIn this prospective study, the CORC score and rule demonstrated good inter-rater reliability and reproducible diagnostic accuracy for estimating the pretest probability of SARs-CoV-2 infection.
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.