ArticlePLOS global public health2024
Development of a clinical prediction score for Ebola virus disease screening at triage centers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 2018-2020 Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) was the largest since the disease's discovery in 1976. Rapid identification and isolation of EVD patients are crucial during triage. This study aimed to develop a clinical prediction score for EVD using clinical and epidemiological predictors. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using surveillance data from EVD outbreak, collected during routine clinical care at the Ebola Transit Center (ETC) in Beni, DRC, from 2018 to 2020. The Spiegelhalter and Knill-Jones method was used for score development, including potential predictors with an adjusted likelihood ratio above 2 or below 0.50. Validation was performed using a dataset previously published in PLOSOne by Tshomba et al. Among 3725 patients screened, 3698 fulfilled the inclusion criteria, with 571 (15.4%) testing positive for EVD via RT-PCR Test. Seven predictive factors were identified: asthenia, sore throat, conjunctivitis, bleeding gums, hematemesis, contact with a sick person, and contact with a traditional healer. The prediction score achieved an Area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) of 0.764, with 81.4% sensitivity and 53.6% specificity at a -1 cutoff. External validation demonstrated an AUROC of 0.766, with 80.8% sensitivity and 41.4% specificity at the -1 cutoff. Our study developed a screening tool to assess the risk of suspected patients developing EVD and being admitted to ETUs for RT-PCR testing and treatment. External validation results affirmed the model's reliability and generalizability in similar settings, suggesting its potential integration into clinical practice. Given the severity and urgency of EVD as well as the risk nosocomial EVD transmission, it is essential to continuously update these models with real-time data on symptoms, disease progression, patient outcomes and validated RDT during EVD outbreaks. This approach will enhance model accuracy, enabling more precise risk assessments and more effective outbreak management.
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.