ArticleBMJ open2024
Community-acquired pneumonia: use of clinical characteristics of acutely admitted patients for the development of a diagnostic model - a cross-sectional multicentre study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04681963 (Clinical Characteristics of Hospitalized Adults With Community-acquired- Pneumonia at the Emergency Department), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Clinical Characteristics of Hospitalized Adults With Community-acquired- Pneumonia at the Emergency Department: A Cross-sectional Study
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy using routine laboratory parameters.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Plasma SP-D, KL-6, and CC16 in Acutely Hospitalised Patients Suspected of Having Community-Acquired Pneumonia-A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to describe the clinical characteristics of adults with suspected acute community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) on hospitalisation, evaluate their prediction performance for CAP and compare the performance of the model to the initial assessment of the physician.
designCross-sectional, multicentre study.
settingThe data originated from the INfectious DisEases in Emergency Departments study and were collected prospectively from patient interviews and medical records. The study included four Danish medical emergency departments (EDs) and was conducted between 1 March 2021 and 28 February 2022.
participantsA total of 954 patients admitted with suspected infection were included in the study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome was CAP diagnosis assessed by an expert panel.
resultsAccording to expert evaluation, CAP had a 28% prevalence. 13 diagnostic predictors were identified using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression to build the prediction model: dyspnoea, expectoration, cough, common cold, malaise, chest pain, respiratory rate (>20 breaths/min), oxygen saturation (<96%), abnormal chest auscultation, leucocytes (<3.5×10
conclusionTypical respiratory symptoms combined with abnormal vital signs and elevated infection biomarkers were predictors for CAP on admission to an ED. The clinical value of the prediction model is questionable in our setting as it does not outperform the clinician's assessment. Further studies that add novel diagnostic tools and use imaging or serological markers are needed to improve a model that would help diagnose CAP in an ED setting more accurately. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04681963.
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.