ArticleJournal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition2026
Prospective evaluation of clinical prediction rules for brief resolved unexplained event.
Article in Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPublished clinical prediction rules propose to determine risks of event recurrence and serious underlying condition in infants with brief resolved unexplained event (BRUE). The objective of this study was to evaluate these rules in a prospectively recruited cohort of infants with BRUE to test the hypothesis that the rules may be helpful in predicting risk but their test characteristics may differ from those previously reported.
methodsTo determine the validity of prediction rules for risk of recurrent events and serious diagnoses, we applied the calculators to patients with BRUE who were prospectively recruited at our institution. Infants were recruited during their index hospitalization, caregiver-reported symptoms were obtained by questionnaires during the 6-month follow-up period, and charts reviewed for clinical data. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were used to calculate values for the sensitivity and specificity of each calculator.
resultsThe cohort included 178 subjects and 73% (130) completed questionnaires. Overall, 78% (101/130) had persistent caregiver-reported symptoms, 12% (16/130) recurrent BRUE, and 28% (50/178) a serious condition diagnosis. The most common serious condition was oropharyngeal dysphagia with aspiration (78% of serious diagnoses, representing 22% of the cohort). On ROC analysis, area under the curve was 0.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-0.83, p = 0.004) for recurrent BRUE and 0.59 (95% CI: 0.49-0.68, p = 0.08) for serious underlying condition. The calculators provided 81% sensitivity, 52% specificity, 20% positive predictive value, and 96% negative predictive value for predicting recurrent BRUE and 54% sensitivity, 68% specificity, 40% positive predictive value, and 79% negative predictive value for predicting a serious condition in our cohort.
conclusionsOur results suggest that published clinical prediction rules may accurately predict event recurrence but may have relatively low discriminatory power and tend to underestimate risk of serious underlying diagnoses, which may limit their clinical impact.
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.