ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Evaluation of a Clinical Index as a Predictive Tool for Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- PCDSOS: a novel clinical predictive tool for screening primary ciliary dyskinesia in adult bronchiectasis patients-a multicenter derivation and external validation study.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Empowering limited-resource countries: collaborating with expert centers for diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2025Article
- Limitations of PICADAR as a diagnostic predictive tool for primary ciliary dyskinesia.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2025Article
- Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia in Adult Bronchiectasis: Data from the German Bronchiectasis Registry PROGNOSIS.Chest · 2024Article
- Evaluation of screening tools for primary ciliary dyskinesia in Egypt: single center study.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2024Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) there is no single diagnostic test. Different predictive tools have been proposed to guide referral of high-risk patients for further diagnostic workup. We aimed to test clinical index (CI) on a large unselected cohort and compare its characteristics with other widely used tools-PICADAR and NA-CDCF.
methodsCI, PICADAR, and NA-CDCF scores were calculated in 1401 patients with suspected PCD referred to our center. Their predictive characteristics were analyzed using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves and compared to each other. Nasal nitric oxide (nNO) was measured in 569 patients older than 3 years.
resultsPCD was diagnosed in 67 (4.8%) patients. CI, PICADAR, and NA-CDCF scores were higher in PCD than in nonPCD group (all
conclusionCI is a feasible predictive tool for PCD that may outperform PICADAR and NA-CFCD.
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.