Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39680379›Full record

ArticleJAMA pediatrics2025

External Validation of Brief Resolved Unexplained Events Prediction Rules for Serious Underlying Diagnosis.

Nassr Nama, Ye Shen, Jeffrey N Bone, Zerlyn Lee, Kara Picco, Falla Jin, Jessica L Foulds, Josée Anne Gagnon, Chris Novak, Brigitte Parisien and 8 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. 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

18 authors.

Nassr NamaDivision of Hospital Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle.
Ye ShenBC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jeffrey N BoneBC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Zerlyn LeeFaculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Kara PiccoHospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Falla JinBC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jessica L FouldsStollery Children's Hospital, Division of Pediatric Hospital Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Josée Anne GagnonCHU de Québec, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada.
Chris NovakDepartment of Pediatrics, Alberta Children's Hospital, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Brigitte ParisienDepartment of Pediatrics, CHU Sainte-Justine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Matthew DonlanMUHC-The Montreal Children's Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Ran D GoldmanBC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Anupam SehgalDepartment of Paediatrics, Kingston General Hospital, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Joanna HollandDivision of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Sanjay MahantHospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Joel S TiederDivision of Hospital Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Seattle Children's Hospital and the University of Washington, Seattle.
Peter J GillHospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Canadian BRUE Collaboration (C-BRUE-C) and the Canadian Paediatric Inpatient Research Network (PIRN)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) higher-risk criteria for brief resolved unexplained events (BRUE) have a low positive predictive value (4.8%) and misclassify most infants as higher risk (>90%). New BRUE prediction rules from a US cohort of 3283 infants showed improved discrimination; however, these rules have not been validated in an external cohort. Objective: To externally validate new BRUE prediction rules and compare them with the AAP higher-risk criteria. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective multicenter cohort study conducted from 2017 to 2021 and monitored for 90 days after index presentation. The setting included infants younger than 1 year with a BRUE identified through retrospective chart review from 11 Canadian hospitals. Study data were analyzed from March 2022 to March 2024. Exposures: The BRUE prediction rules. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was a serious underlying diagnosis, defined as conditions where a delay in diagnosis could lead to increased morbidity or mortality. Results: Of 1042 patients (median [IQR] age, 41 [13-84] days; 529 female [50.8%]), 977 (93.8%) were classified as higher risk by the AAP criteria. A total of 79 patients (7.6%) had a serious underlying diagnosis. For this outcome, the AAP criteria demonstrated a sensitivity of 100.0% (95% CI, 95.4%-100.0%), a specificity of 6.7% (95% CI, 5.2%-8.5%), a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.09), and an AUC of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.53-0.54). The BRUE prediction rule for discerning serious diagnoses displayed an AUC of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.54-0.67; calibration intercept: 0.60), which improved to an AUC of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65-0.76; P < .001; calibration intercept: 0.00) after model revision. Event recurrence was noted in 163 patients (15.6%). For this outcome, the AAP criteria yielded a sensitivity of 99.4% (95% CI, 96.6%-100.0%), a specificity of 7.3% (95% CI, 5.7%-9.2%), an LR+ of 1.07 (95% CI, 1.05-1.10), and an AUC of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.56-0.58). The AUC of the prediction rule stood at 0.67 (95% CI, 0.62-0.72; calibration intercept: 0.15). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this multicenter cohort study show that the BRUE prediction rules outperformed the AAP higher-risk criteria on external geographical validation, and performance improved after recalibration. These rules provide clinicians and families with a more precise tool to support decision-making, grounded in individual risk tolerance.

Indexed as

Brief, Resolved, Unexplained EventClinical Decision RulesCanadaFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalePredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID39680379
PMCPMC11791710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.