Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36730094›Full record

SynthesisJournal of global health2023

The ability of non-physician health workers to identify chest indrawing to detect pneumonia in children below five years of age in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ahad Mahmud Khan, Saima Sultana, Salahuddin Ahmed, Ting Shi, Eric D McCollum, Abdullah H Baqui, Steve Cunningham, Harry Campbell, RESPIRE Collaboration

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of global health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Ahad Mahmud KhanUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Saima SultanaProjahnmo Research Foundation, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Salahuddin AhmedUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Ting ShiUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Eric D McCollumEudowood Division of Paediatric Respiratory Sciences, Department of Paediatrics, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abdullah H BaquiDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Steve CunninghamCentre for Inflammation Research, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Harry CampbellUsher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
RESPIRE Collaboration
Biomedical Research Foundation · BDJohns Hopkins University · USUniversity of Edinburgh · GBCentre for Inflammation Research · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Non-physician health workers play a vital role in diagnosing and treating pneumonia in children in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Chest indrawing is a key indicator for pneumonia diagnosis, signifying the severity of the disease. We conducted this systematic review to summarize the evidence on non-physician health workers' ability to identify chest indrawing to detect pneumonia in children below five years of age in LMICs. Methods: We comprehensively searched four electronic databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus, and reference lists from the identified studies, from January 1, 1990, to January 20, 2022, with no language restrictions. Studies evaluating the performance of non-physician health workers in identifying chest indrawing compared to a reference standard were included. We used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool to assess the methodological quality of the selected studies and conducted a meta-analysis following a bivariate random effects model to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity. Results: We identified nine studies covering 4468 children that reported the accuracy of a non-physician health worker in identifying chest indrawing. Most studies were conducted in the 1990s, based at health facility settings, with children aged 2-59 months, and with pediatricians/physicians as the reference standard. Using the QUADAS-2, we evaluated most studies as having a low risk of bias and a low concern regarding applicability in all domains. The median sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 44%, 97%, 55%, and 95%, respectively. We selected five studies for the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity was 46% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 37-56), and the pooled specificity was 95% (95% CI = 91-97). Conclusions: We found the ability of non-physician health workers in LMICs in identifying chest indrawing pneumonia is relatively poor. Appropriate measures, such as targeted identification and training, supportive supervision, regular performance assessment, and feedback for those who have a poor ability to recognize chest indrawing, should be taken to improve the diagnosis of pneumonia in children. New studies are needed to assess the new generation of health workers. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42022306954).

Indexed as

PhysiciansPneumoniaChildChild, PreschoolDeveloping CountriesHealth PersonnelHumans

Identifiers

PMID36730094
PMCPMC9894506
OpenAlexW4318921608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.