ArticleERJ open research2021
Diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia: discrepancy according to different algorithms.
Article in ERJ open research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Making the Diagnosis of Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia in Australia.Pediatric pulmonology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Role of Immunofluorescence Analysis in Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia-Suspected Individuals.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Limitations of PICADAR as a diagnostic predictive tool for primary ciliary dyskinesia.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2025Article
- X -linked inheritance of primary ciliary dyskinesia and retinitis pigmentosa due toRespirology case reports · 2023Article
- Reducing exacerbations in children and adults with primary ciliary dyskinesia using erdosteine and/or azithromycin therapy (REPEAT trial): study protocol for a multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, 2×2 partial factorial, randomised controlled trial.BMJ open respiratory research · 2022Article
- A Comprehensive Approach for the Diagnosis of Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia-Experiences from the First 100 Patients of the PCD-UNIBE Diagnostic Center.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Bronchiectasis.Open respiratory archivesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is challenging since there is no gold standard test. The European Respiratory (ERS) and American Thoracic (ATS) Societies developed evidence-based diagnostic guidelines with considerable differences.
objectiveWe aimed to compare the algorithms published by the ERS and the ATS with each other and with our own PCD-UNIBE algorithm in a clinical setting. Our algorithm is similar to the ERS algorithm with additional immunofluorescence staining. Agreement (Cohen's κ) and concordance between the three algorithms were assessed in patients with suspicion of PCD referred to our diagnostic centre.
resultsIn 46 out of 54 patients (85%) the final diagnosis was concordant between all three algorithms (30 PCD negative, 16 PCD positive). In eight patients (15%) PCD diagnosis differed between the algorithms. Five patients (9%) were diagnosed as PCD only by the ATS, one (2%) only by the ERS and PCD-UNIBE, one (2%) only by the ATS and PCD-UNIBE, and one (2%) only by the PCD-UNIBE algorithm. Agreement was substantial between the ERS and the ATS (κ=0.72, 95% CI 0.53-0.92) and the ATS and the PCD-UNIBE (κ=0.73, 95% CI 0.53-0.92) and almost perfect between the ERS and the PCD-UNIBE algorithms (κ=0.92, 95% CI 0.80-1.00).
conclusionThe different diagnostic algorithms lead to a contradictory diagnosis in a considerable proportion of patients. Thus, an updated, internationally harmonised and standardised PCD diagnostic algorithm is needed to improve diagnostics for these discordant cases.
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.