slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Streptococcal Pharyngitis: A Systematic Review of the Predictive Value of Signs and Symptoms and the External Validatio PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Streptococcal Pharyngitis: A Systematic Review of the Predictive Value of Signs and Symptoms and the External Validatio

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 21

Streptococcal Pharyngitis: A Systematic Review of the Predictive Value of Signs and Symptoms and the External Validatio - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 178 Views
  • Uploaded on

By Jolien Aalbers University of Nijmegen. Streptococcal Pharyngitis: A Systematic Review of the Predictive Value of Signs and Symptoms and the External Validation of the Centor Score CPR. Outline. Background

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Streptococcal Pharyngitis: A Systematic Review of the Predictive Value of Signs and Symptoms and the External Validatio' - sun


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

By Jolien Aalbers

University of Nijmegen

Streptococcal Pharyngitis:

A Systematic Review of the Predictive Value of Signs and Symptoms and the External Validation of the Centor Score CPR

outline
Outline
  • Background
  • Methods1. Diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms2. Validation of the Centor Score
  • Results1.Diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms2. Validation of the Centor Score
background
Background
  • Group A β-haemolytic Streptococcal (GABHS) pharyngitis can lead to serious complications
  • GABHS infection is the only indication for treatment with antibiotics
  • Antibiotic resistance is an important public health issue
  • A prediction rule to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions would help to decrease antibiotic resistance
clinical prediction rule
Clinical prediction rule

“A tool that quantifies the contribution of symptoms, clinical signs and available diagnostic tests to stratify patients according to the probability of having a target disorder”

“The outcome can have a diagnostic, prognostic or therapeutic value”

the centor score
The Centor Score

4 items: 1. Tonsillar exudate

2. Tender cervical anterior adenopathy

3. History of fever (or >38.0C)

4. Absence of cough

Cumulative score (0-4 points): 0. 2.5%

(post-test probabilities) 1. 6.5% (6.0-6.9)

2. 15.4% (14.1-16.6)

3. 31.6% (30.1-34.1)

4. 55.7%

other diagnostic tests
Other diagnostic tests

Throat swab: “gold” standard

  • Takes 24-48 hours for results
  • Expensive
  • A proportion of patients with positive cultures are carriers

Rapid Antigen Detection Test (RADT):

  • Not as sensitive as the throat swab
  • Possible lack of cost-effectiveness
study methods 1
Study methods (1)

Search strategy:

  • PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane database, Google Scholar and MEDION
  • Hand-checking references of filtered papers

Inclusion and exclusion-criteria:

  • Population: participants were recruited upon 1st presentation from an ambulatory care setting with sore throat as their main presenting complaint, and had to be at least 15 years of age or older
study methods 2
Study methods (2)
  • Study design: the studies had to assess either the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms and/or apply the Centor score
  • Reference standard: a throat swab
  • Retrospective and prospective studies were included
  • No criteria were set for the size of the population

Quality assessment: modified QUADAS tool

(QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies)

methods 3 data extraction and analysis of diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms
Signs and symptoms: Exudate

Absence of cough

Fever (>38.0 C)

Tender Adenopathy

Adenopathy

Data extraction from: 2x2 tables

Analysis with: likelihood ratios, ROC-curves, probability nomogram

I²-index for heterogeneity

Where heterogeneity is acceptable, likelihood ratios can be pooled

Methods (3): data extraction and analysis of diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms
methods 4 data extraction and analysis of validation of the centor score
Methods (4): data extraction and analysis of validation of the Centor score
  • Predicted versus observed
  • Forest plots – using Random effect model
  • I²-index for heterogeneity
  • Prevalence correction
results 1
Results (1)
  • 340 potentially relevant articles
  • 16 studies included- 16 studies: signs and symptoms: 3371 patients

- 11 studies: validation of the Centor score: 1603 patients

  • Large variability in prevalence: 4.7% - 36.8%
positive likelihood ratios
Positive likelihood ratios

Sign of “any exudates”

Pooled Positive LR = 1.95 (1.63 – 2.32)

I² = 74.2% (heterogeneity)

negative likelihood ratios
Negative likelihood ratios

Sign of “Absence of cough”

Pooled Negative LR = 0.59 (0.50 – 0.69)

I² = 22.7% (heterogeneity)

results 2 diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms
Results (2): Diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms
  • Very heterogeneous results
  • No powerful likelihood ratios

Conclusion: no sign or symptom on its own is powerful enough to rule in or rule out the diagnosis of streptococcal pharyngitis

results 3 validation of the centor score
Results (3): Validation of the Centor score

The Centor score

four items: 1. Tonsillar exudate

2. Tender cervical anterior adenopathy

3. History of fever (or >38.0C)

4. Absence of cough

Each item gets 1 point. Score: 0-4 points

forest plot for centor score 0 1
Forest plot for Centor score 0-1

I² = 5% of heterogeneity

Z = 2.77, P = 0.006

forest plot for centor score 2 3
Forest plot for Centor score 2-3

I² = 62% of heterogeneity

Z = 1.15, P = 0.25

forest plot for centor score 4
Forest plot for Centor score 4

I² = 7% of heterogeneity

Z = 1.33, P = 0.18

prevalence correction
Prevalence correction

Adjusted for pooled prevalence of 21.9%

Centor Score 1

results 4 validation of the centor score
Results (4): Validation of the Centor score

Conclusions:

  • Heterogeneity is acceptable
  • Underprediction for Centor score 0-1
  • No significant difference between predicted and observed values in Centor score 2-4
  • Underprediction in studies with a higher prevalence and overprediction in studies with a lower prevalence, compared with Centors’ prevalence
  • Correction with a pooled prevalence is possible