ArticleFrontiers in molecular biosciences2025
Limitations of PICADAR as a diagnostic predictive tool for primary ciliary dyskinesia.
Article in Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 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.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia Rule (PICADAR) is a diagnostic predictive tool currently recommended by the European Respiratory Society (ERS) to assess the likelihood of a primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) diagnosis. Despite its recommendation according to the current ERS PCD diagnostic guideline, the performance of the PICADAR remains insufficiently studied. Methods: We evaluated the sensitivity of PICADAR in 269 individuals with genetically confirmed PCD. Using an initial question, PICADAR rates all individuals without daily wet cough negative for PCD. PICADAR evaluates seven questions in the daily wet cough group. We here calculated test sensitivity based on the proportion of individuals scoring ≥5 points as recommended. Subgroup analyses examined the impact of laterality defects and predicted hallmark ultrastructural defects. Results: 18 individuals (7%) reported no daily wet cough ruling out PCD according to PICADAR. The median PICADAR score was 7 (IQR: 5-9), with an overall sensitivity of 75% (202/269). Sensitivity was higher in individuals with laterality defects (95%; median score: 10; IQR 8-11) compared to those with situs solitus (61%, median score: 6; IQR 4-8; p*<0.0001). Further stratification by associated ciliary ultrastructure showed higher sensitivity in individuals with hallmark defects (83%) versus those without (59%, p*<0.0001). Conclusion: The PICADAR has limited sensitivity, particularly in individuals without laterality defects (61%) or absent hallmark ultrastructural defects (59%). Therefore, PICADAR should not be the only factor to initiate diagnostic work-up for PCD. Alternative predictive tools are needed, particularly for PCD individuals with normal body composition and normal ultrastructure.
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.