ArticleHospital pediatrics2022
Refinement and Validation of a Clinical-Based Approach to Evaluate Young Febrile Infants.
Article in Hospital pediatrics, 2022. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a machine learning-based prediction model for serious bacterial infections in febrile young infants.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Article
- Scoping review of clinical decision aids in the assessment and management of febrile infants under 90 days of age.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- Performance of AAP CPG for Ineligible Well-Appearing Febrile Infants Aged 8-60 Days.Hospital pediatrics · 2024Article
- Performance of AAP Clinical Practice Guideline for Febrile Infants at One Pediatric Hospital.Hospital pediatrics · 2023Article
- Adding heart rate n-variability (HRnV) to clinical assessment potentially improves prediction of serious bacterial infections in young febrile infants at the emergency department: a prospective observational study.Annals of translational medicine · 2023Article
- Derivation of a clinical-based model to detect invasive bacterial infections in febrile infants.Journal of hospital medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveFor febrile infants, predictive models to detect bacterial infections are available, but clinical adoption remains limited by implementation barriers. There is a need for predictive models using widely available predictors. Thus, we previously derived 2 novel predictive models (machine learning and regression) by using demographic and clinical factors, plus urine studies. The objective of this study is to refine and externally validate the predictive models.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional study of infants initially evaluated at one pediatric emergency department from January 2011 to December 2018. Inclusion criteria were age 0 to 90 days, temperature ≥38°C, documented gestational age, and insurance type. To reduce potential biases, we derived models again by using derivation data without insurance status and tested the ability of the refined models to detect bacterial infections (ie, urinary tract infection, bacteremia, and meningitis) in the separate validation sample, calculating areas-under-the-receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivities, and specificities.
resultsOf 1419 febrile infants (median age 53 days, interquartile range = 32-69), 99 (7%) had a bacterial infection. Areas-under-the-receiver operating characteristic curve of machine learning and regression models were 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-0.94) and 0.90 (0.86-0.93) compared with 0.95 (0.91-0.98) and 0.96 (0.94-0.98) in the derivation study. Sensitivities and specificities of machine learning and regression models were 98.0% (94.7%-100%) and 54.2% (51.5%-56.9%) and 96.0% (91.5%-99.1%) and 50.0% (47.4%-52.7%).
conclusionsCompared with the derivation study, the machine learning and regression models performed similarly. Findings suggest a clinical-based model can estimate bacterial infection risk. Future studies should prospectively test the models and investigate strategies to optimize clinical adoption.
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.