ArticleMultidisciplinary respiratory medicine2024
Evaluation of screening tools for primary ciliary dyskinesia in Egypt: single center study.
Article in Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Diagnosis of Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia: Putting The European Respiratory/American Thoracic Guideline Into Practice.Pediatric pulmonology · 2026Guideline
- European Respiratory Society and American Thoracic Society guidelines for the diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia.The European respiratory journal · 2025Guideline
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a chronic respiratory illness that places significant strain on the healthcare system due to the complexity and expense of its diagnosis and treatment methods. The diagnostic process typically requires skilled technicians and an assortment of intricate, costly, and time-consuming approaches. Implementing screening tools can enhance efficiency by focusing the diagnostic process on those strongly suspected of having PCD. Tools such as the PCD Rule (PICADAR), North America Criteria Defined Clinical Features (NA-CDCF), the Clinical Index Score (CI), and the newly proposed CInew13 could potentially serve as useful screening tools. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of these tools individually, compare their performance against each other, and assess their results relative to prior research.
methodsWe conducted a diagnostic accuracy test on 83 Egyptian patients referred to Alexandria University Children's Hospital for potential PCD diagnosis between January 2015 and December 2022. The scores obtained from the screening tools were calculated and assessed.
resultsOf the initial group, 10 patients were ruled out because they fit other diagnostic parameters. Forty-three cases received a confirmed diagnosis, while 30 did not. Notably, the confirmed cases consistently scored higher on our screening tools than those that remained unconfirmed (p <.001, for all tested scores). We used receiver operating characteristic curves to assess and compare the effectiveness of each tool. The NA-CDCF had the smallest area under curve 0.736 (95% confiedence interval 0.619-0.832); in contrast, the CI score had the largest 0.898 (95% confidence interval 0.808-0.957).
conclusionAll the tools tested were effective in identifying suitable patients for PCD testing at statistically significant levels. However, the PICADAR and NA-CDCF scores' performance did not significantly differ in the current study. The CI and CInew13 scores, on the other hand, outperformed both.
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.