4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Can we predict which children with clinically suspected pneumonia will have the presence of focal infiltrates on chest radiographs?

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 113, 期 3, 页码 E186-E189

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.113.3.e186

关键词

pneumonia; chest radiographs; children; predictive factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To determine predictive factors for the presence of focal infiltrates in children with clinically suspected pneumonia in a pediatric emergency department. Methods. Children (1-16 years) with clinically suspected pneumonia were studied prospectively. The presenting features were compared between the children with and without focal infiltrates using chi(2) analysis, t test, and odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals. A multivariate prediction rule was developed using logistic regression. Results. A total of 570 were studied. Risk factors (odds ratio; 95% confidence interval) for the presence of focal infiltrates included history of fever (3.1; 1.7-5.3), decreased breath sounds (1.4; 1.0-2.0), crackles (2.0; 1.4-2.9), retractions (2.8; 1.0-7.6), grunting (7.3; 1.1-48.1), fever (1.5; 1.2-1.9), tachypnea (1.8; 1.3-2.5), and tachycardia (1.3; 1.0-1.6). We then used logistic regression to develop a candidate prediction rule for the variables of fever, decreased breath sounds, crackles, and tachypnea, which had an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.668. This rule had excellent sensitivity (93.1%-98%) yet poor specificity (5.7%-19.4%). Conclusions. Multiple predictive factors for children with suspected pneumonia have been identified. Patients with focal infiltrates were more likely in our study to have a history of fever, tachypnea, increased heart rate, retractions, grunting, crackles, or decreased breath sounds. A multivariate prediction rule shows promise for the accurate prediction of pneumonia in children. However, the prospective evaluation of this multivariate prediction rule in a clinical setting is still required.

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