MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103930352 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.140772

Selective testing strategies for diagnosing group A streptococcal infection in children with pharyngitis: a systematic review and prospective multicentre external validation study

2014· review· en· W2103930352 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jérémie F. Cohen, Robert Cohen, Corinne Lévy, Franck Thollot, Mohamed Benani, Philippe Bidet, Martin Chalumeau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStreptococcal Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité Paris Diderot
KeywordsPharyngitisMedicineProspective cohort studyConfidence intervalInternal medicineClinical prediction ruleCohort studyCohortIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Several clinical prediction rules for diagnosing group A streptococcal infection in children with pharyngitis are available. We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of rules-based selective testing strategies in a prospective cohort of children with pharyngitis. METHODS: We identified clinical prediction rules through a systematic search of MEDLINE and Embase (1975-2014), which we then validated in a prospective cohort involving French children who presented with pharyngitis during a 1-year period (2010-2011). We diagnosed infection with group A streptococcus using two throat swabs: one obtained for a rapid antigen detection test (StreptAtest, Dectrapharm) and one obtained for culture (reference standard). We validated rules-based selective testing strategies as follows: low risk of group A streptococcal infection, no further testing or antibiotic therapy needed; intermediate risk of infection, rapid antigen detection for all patients and antibiotic therapy for those with a positive test result; and high risk of infection, empiric antibiotic treatment. RESULTS: We identified 8 clinical prediction rules, 6 of which could be prospectively validated. Sensitivity and specificity of rules-based selective testing strategies ranged from 66% (95% confidence interval [CI] 61-72) to 94% (95% CI 92-97) and from 40% (95% CI 35-45) to 88% (95% CI 85-91), respectively. Use of rapid antigen detection testing following the clinical prediction rule ranged from 24% (95% CI 21-27) to 86% (95% CI 84-89). None of the rules-based selective testing strategies achieved our diagnostic accuracy target (sensitivity and specificity>85%). INTERPRETATION: Rules-based selective testing strategies did not show sufficient diagnostic accuracy in this study population. The relevance of clinical prediction rules for determining which children with pharyngitis should undergo a rapid antigen detection test remains questionable.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.009
Bibliometrics0.0120.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations59
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicStreptococcal Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207