ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Diagnostic test accuracy of simplified algorithms for diagnosing acute rheumatic fever: a systematic review.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRheumatic heart disease, the long-term sequel to acute rheumatic fever, remains a prevalent public health problem in Africa and other low to middle-income regions of the world. Diagnosing acute rheumatic fever and using the modified Jones criteria in high-prevalence areas remains challenging.
methodsWe assessed the (i) diagnostic accuracy of simplified diagnostic algorithms among children, adolescents, and adults with suspected acute rheumatic fever, and (ii) the impact of different diagnostic criteria on the development of rheumatic heart disease (PROSPERO CRD42022344077). The MEDLINE, Embase, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science were searched for relevant reports (date: 15th March 2025).
resultsHere we identify 12,075 records, and three studies (four reports) meeting our eligibility criteria. Simplified diagnostic algorithms using only clinical data at community health centre-level (AUC 0.69, sensitivity 66% and specificity 68%), or adding 12-lead electrocardiogram and simple laboratory investigations at district-level facilities (AUC 0.76, sensitivity 77% and specificity 67%) perform worse than models including the full-set of laboratory investigations and echocardiography at National referral hospitals (AUC 0.91, sensitivity 84% & specificity 87%). Using modified Jones criteria without echocardiography results in an important loss of sensitivity (sensitivity 79%, specificity 100% & AUC 0.90). Progression to rheumatic heart disease is reported in 2.5-5% of children and young adults in high-prevalence areas who do not meet the full modified Jones criteria.
conclusionsSimplification of the modified Jones criteria in areas without access to echocardiography and laboratory investigations may lead to underdiagnosis of acute rheumatic fever. Some patients who do not meet the modified Jones criteria for definite acute rheumatic fever diagnosis may still progress to develop rheumatic heart disease.
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.