4.7 Article

Diagnosis of Primary Ciliary Dyskinesia An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201805-0819ST

关键词

primary ciliary dyskinesia; Kartagener syndrome; situs inversus; nitric oxide; diagnosis

资金

  1. American Thoracic Society
  2. Division of Intramural Research, NHLBI, NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This document presents the American Thoracic Society clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD). Target Audience: Clinicians investigating adult and pediatric patients for possible PCD. Methods: Systematic reviews and, when appropriate, meta-analyses were conducted to summarize all available evidence pertinent to our clinical questions. Evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for diagnosis and discussed by a multidisciplinary panel with expertise in PCD. Predetermined conflict-of-interest management strategies were applied, and recommendations were formulated, written, and graded exclusively by the nonconflicted panelists. Three conflicted individuals were also prohibited from writing, editing, or providing feedback on the relevant sections of the manuscript. Results: After considering diagnostic test accuracy, confidence in the estimates for each diagnostic test, relative importance of test results studied, desirable and undesirable direct consequences of each diagnostic test, downstream consequences of each diagnostic test result, patient values and preferences, costs, feasibility, acceptability, and implications for health equity, the panel made recommendations for or against the use of specific diagnostic tests as compared with using the current reference standard (transmission electron microscopy and/or genetic testing) for the diagnosis of PCD. Conclusions: The panel formulated and provided a rationale for the direction as well as for the strength of each recommendation to establish the diagnosis of PCD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据