ReviewCureus2023
Unraveling the Predictive Potential of Rapid Scoring in Pleural Infection: A Critical Review.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pleural infection, or pleural empyema, is a severe medical condition associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Timely and accurate prognostication is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes and resource allocation. Rapid scoring systems have emerged as promising tools in pleural infection prognostication, integrating various clinical and laboratory parameters to assess disease severity and quantitatively predict short-term and long-term outcomes. This review article critically evaluates existing rapid scoring systems, including CURB-65 (confusion, uremia, respiratory rate, blood pressure, age ≥ 65 years), A-DROP (age (male >70 years, female >75 years), dehydration, respiratory failure, orientation disturbance, and low blood pressure), and APACHE II (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II), assessing their predictive accuracy and limitations. Our analysis highlights the potential clinical implications of rapid scoring, including risk stratification, treatment tailoring, and follow-up planning. We discuss practical considerations and challenges in implementing rapid scoring such as data accessibility and potential sources of bias. Furthermore, we emphasize the importance of validation, transparency, and multidisciplinary collaboration to refine and enhance the clinical applicability of these scoring systems. The prospects for rapid scoring in pleural infection management are promising, with ongoing research and data science advances offering improvement opportunities. Ultimately, the successful integration of rapid scoring into clinical practice can potentially improve patient care and outcomes in pleural infection management.
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.