Should all acutely ill children in primary care be tested with point-of-care CRP: A cluster randomised trial

Background: Point-of-care blood C-reactive protein (CRP) testing has diagnostic value in helping clinicians rule out the possibility of serious infection. We investigated whether it should be offered to all acutely ill children in primary care or restricted to those identified as at risk on clinical assessment. Methods: Cluster randomised controlled trial involving acutely ill children presenting to 133 general practitioners (GPs) at 78 GP practices in Belgium. Practices were randomised to undertake point-of-care CRP testing in all children (1730 episodes) or restricted to children identified as at clinical risk (1417 episodes). Clinical risk was assessed by a validated clinical decision rule (presence of one of breathlessness, temperature ≥ 40 °C, diarrhoea and age 12-30 months, or clinician concern). The main trial outcome was hospital admission with serious infection within 5 days. No specific guidance was given to GPs on interpreting CRP levels but diagnostic performance is reported at 5, 20, 80 and 200 mg/L. Results: Restricting CRP testing to those identified as at clinical risk substantially reduced the number of children tested by 79.9 % (95 % CI, 77.8-82.0 %). There was no significant difference between arms in the number of children with serious infection who were referred to hospital immediately (0.16 % vs. 0.14 %, P = 0.88). Only one child with a CRP < 5 mg/L had an illness requiring admission (a child with viral gastroenteritis admitted for rehydration). However, of the 80 children referred to hospital to rule out serious infection, 24 (30.7 %, 95 % CI, 19.6-45.6 %) had a CRP < 5 mg/L. Conclusions: CRP testing should be restricted to children at higher risk after clinical assessment. A CRP < 5 mg/L rules out serious infection and could be used by GPs to avoid unnecessary hospital referrals

Common evidence gaps in point-of-care diagnostic test evaluation: a review of horizon scan reports

Objective: Since 2008, the Oxford Diagnostic Horizon Scan Programme has been identifying and summarising evidence on new and emerging diagnostic technologies relevant to primary care. We used these reports to determine the sequence and timing of evidence for new point-of-care diagnostic tests and to identify common evidence gaps in this process. Design: Systematic overview of diagnostic horizon scan reports. Primary outcome measures: We obtained the primary studies referenced in each horizon scan report (n=40) and extracted details of the study size, clinical setting and design characteristics. In particular, we assessed whether each study evaluated test accuracy, test impact or cost-effectiveness. The evidence for each point-of-care test was mapped against the Horvath framework for diagnostic test evaluation. Results: We extracted data from 500 primary studies. Most diagnostic technologies underwent clinical performance (ie, ability to detect a clinical condition) assessment (71.2%), with very few progressing to comparative clinical effectiveness (10.0%) and a cost-effectiveness evaluation (8.6%), even in the more established and frequently reported clinical domains, such as cardiovascular disease. The median time to complete an evaluation cycle was 9 years (IQR 5.5–12.5 years). The sequence of evidence generation was typically haphazard and some diagnostic tests appear to be implemented in routine care without completing essential evaluation stages such as clinical effectiveness. Conclusions: Evidence generation for new point-of-care diagnostic tests is slow and tends to focus on accuracy, and overlooks other test attributes such as impact, implementation and cost-effectiveness. Evaluation of this dynamic cycle and feeding back data from clinical effectiveness to refine analytical and clinical performance are key to improve the efficiency of point-of-care diagnostic test development and impact on clinically relevant outcomes. While the ‘road map’ for the steps needed to generate evidence are reasonably well delineated, we provide evidence on the complexity, length and variability of the actual process that many diagnostic technologies undergo

Predictors of disease severity in children presenting from the community with febrile illnesses: a systematic review of prognostic studies.

Early identification of children at risk of severe febrile illness can optimise referral, admission and treatment decisions, particularly in resource-limited settings. We aimed to identify prognostic clinical and laboratory factors that predict progression to severe disease in febrile children presenting from the community. We systematically reviewed publications retrieved from MEDLINE, Web of Science and Embase between 31 May 1999 and 30 April 2020, supplemented by hand search of reference lists and consultation with an expert Technical Advisory Panel. Studies evaluating prognostic factors or clinical prediction models in children presenting from the community with febrile illnesses were eligible. The primary outcome was any objective measure of disease severity ascertained within 30 days of enrolment. We calculated unadjusted likelihood ratios (LRs) for comparison of prognostic factors, and compared clinical prediction models using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). Risk of bias and applicability of studies were assessed using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool. Of 5949 articles identified, 18 studies evaluating 200 prognostic factors and 25 clinical prediction models in 24 530 children were included. Heterogeneity between studies precluded formal meta-analysis. Malnutrition (positive LR range 1.56-11.13), hypoxia (2.10-8.11), altered consciousness (1.24-14.02), and markers of acidosis (1.36-7.71) and poor peripheral perfusion (1.78-17.38) were the most common predictors of severe disease. Clinical prediction model performance varied widely (AUROC range 0.49-0.97). Concerns regarding applicability were identified and most studies were at high risk of bias. Few studies address this important public health question. We identified prognostic factors from a wide range of geographic contexts that can help clinicians assess febrile children at risk of progressing to severe disease. Multicentre studies that include outpatients are required to explore generalisability and develop data-driven tools to support patient prioritisation and triage at the community level. CRD42019140542

A progress report of the IFCC Committee for Standardization of Thyroid Function Tests

BACKGROUND: The IFCC Committee for Standardization of Thyroid Function Tests aims at equivalence of laboratory test results for free thyroxine (FT4) and thyrotropin (TSH). OBJECTIVES: This report describes the phase III method comparison study with clinical samples representing a broad spectrum of thyroid disease. The objective was to expand the feasibility work and explore the impact of standardization/harmonization in the clinically relevant concentration range. METHODS: Two sets of serum samples (74 for FT4, 94 for TSH) were obtained in a clinical setting. Eight manufacturers participated in the study (with 13 FT4 and 14 TSH assays). Targets for FT4 were set by the international conventional reference measurement procedure of the IFCC; those for TSH were based on the all-procedure trimmed mean. The manufacturers recalibrated their assays against these targets. RESULTS: All FT4 assays were negatively biased in the mid- to high concentration range, with a maximum interassay discrepancy of approximately 30%. However, in the low range, the maximum deviation was approximately 90%. For TSH, interassay comparability was reasonable in the mid-concentration range, but worse in the pathophysiological ranges. Recalibration was able to eliminate the interassay differences, so that the remaining dispersion of the data was nearly entirely due to within-assay random error components. The impact of recalibration on the numerical results was particularly high for FT4. CONCLUSIONS: Standardization and harmonization of FT4 and TSH measurements is feasible from a technical point of view. Because of the impact on the numerical values, the implementation needs careful preparation with the stakeholders

Early detection of multiple myeloma in primary care using blood tests: a case-control study in primary care

This is the final version. Available on open access from Royal College of General Practitioners via the DOI in this recordBACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is a haematological cancer characterised by numerous non-specific symptoms leading to diagnostic delay in a large proportion of patients. AIM: To identify which blood tests are useful in suggesting or excluding a diagnosis of myeloma. DESIGN AND SETTING: A matched case-control study set in UK primary care using routinely collected data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. METHOD: Symptom prevalence and blood tests were analysed up to 5 years before diagnosis in 2703 cases and 12 157 matched controls. Likelihood ratios (LR) were used to classify tests or their combinations as useful rule-in tests (LR+ = ≥5), or rule-out tests (LR- = ≤0.2). RESULTS: Raised plasma viscosity (PV) had an LR+ = 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7 to 2.3; erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) 1.9, 95% CI = 1.7 to 2.0; and C-reactive protein (CRP) 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1 to 1.4. A normal haemoglobin had an LR- = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.45; calcium LR- = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.83; and creatinine LR- = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.77 to 0.83. The test combination with the lowest LR- was all normal haemoglobin with calcium and PV, which had an LR- = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.18, though the LR- for normal haemoglobin and PV together was 0.12 (95% CI = 0.07 to 0.23). CONCLUSION: Plasma viscosity and ESR are better for both ruling in and ruling out the disease compared with C-reactive protein. A combination of a normal ESR or PV and normal haemoglobin is a simple rule-out approach for patients currently being tested in primary care.This manuscript presents work carried out as part of a DPhil scholarship awarded to Constantinos Koshiaris funded by the Primary Care Research Trust, the University of Oxford, and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford CLAHRC. This article presents independent research funded by the NIHR

GPs' reasons for referral of patients with chest pain: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Prompt diagnosis of an acute coronary syndrome is very important and urgent referral to a hospital is imperative because fast treatment can be life-saving and increase the patient's life expectancy and quality of life. The aim of our study was to identify GPs' reasons for referring or not referring patients presenting with chest pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a semi-structured interview, 21 GPs were asked to describe why they do or do not refer a patient presenting with chest pain. Interviews were taped, transcribed and qualitatively analysed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Histories of 21 patients were studied. Six were not referred, seven were referred to a cardiologist and eight to the emergency department. GPs' reasons for referral were background knowledge about the patient, patient's age and cost-benefit estimation, the perception of a negative attitude from the medical rescue team, recent patient contact with a cardiologist without detection of a coronary disease and the actual presentation of signs and symptoms, gut feeling, clinical examination and ECG results.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study suggests that GPs believe they do not exclusively use the 'classical' signs and symptoms in their decision-making process for patients presenting with chest pain. Background knowledge about the patient, GPs' personal ideas and gut feeling are also important.</p

The predictive value of the NICE "red traffic lights" in acutely ill children

Objective: Early recognition and treatment of febrile children with serious infections (SI) improves prognosis, however, early detection can be difficult. We aimed to validate the predictive rule-in value of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) most severe alarming signs or symptoms to identify SI in children. Design, Setting and Participants: The 16 most severe ("red") features of the NICE traffic light system were validated in seven different primary care and emergency department settings, including 6,260 children presenting with acute illness. Main Outcome Measures: We focussed on the individual predictive value of single red features for SI and their combinations. Results were presented as positive likelihood ratios, sensitivities and specificities. We categorised "general" and "disease-specific" red features. Changes in pre-test probability versus post-test probability for SI were visualised in Fagan nomograms. Results: Almost all red features had rule-in value for SI, but only four individual red features substantially raised the probability of SI in more than one dataset: "does not wake/stay awake", "reduced skin turgor", "non-blanching rash", and "focal neurological signs". The presence of ≥3 red features improved prediction of SI but still lacked strong rule-in value as likelihood ratios were below 5. Conclusions: The rule-in value of the most severe alarming signs or symptoms of the NICE traffic light system for identifying children with SI was limited, even when multiple red features were present. Our study highlights the importance of assessing the predictive value of alarming signs in clinical guidelines prior to widespread implementation in routine practice

Consensus on gut feelings in general practice

Contains fulltext : 81134.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: General practitioners sometimes base clinical decisions on gut feelings alone, even though there is little evidence of their diagnostic and prognostic value in daily practice. Research to validate the determinants and to assess the test properties of gut feelings requires precise and valid descriptions of gut feelings in general practice which can be used as a reliable measuring instrument. Research question: Can we obtain consensus on descriptions of two types of gut feelings: a sense of alarm and a sense of reassurance? METHODS: Qualitative research including a Delphi consensus procedure with a heterogeneous sample of 27 Dutch and Belgian GPs or ex-GPs involved in academic educational or research programmes. RESULTS: After four rounds, we found 70% or greater agreement on seven of the eleven proposed statements. A "sense of alarm" is defined as an uneasy feeling perceived by a GP as he/she is concerned about a possible adverse outcome, even though specific indications are lacking: There's something wrong here. This activates the diagnostic process by stimulating the GP to formulate and weigh up working hypotheses that might involve a serious outcome. A "sense of alarm" means that, if possible, the GP needs to initiate specific management to prevent serious health problems. A "sense of reassurance" is defined as a secure feeling perceived by a GP about the further management and course of a patient's problem, even though the doctor may not be certain about the diagnosis: Everything fits in. CONCLUSION: The sense of alarm and the sense of reassurance are well-defined concepts. These descriptions enable us to operationalise the concept of gut feelings in further research

Duration of fever and serious bacterial infections in children: a systematic review

Background: Parents of febrile children frequently contact primary care. Longer duration of fever has been related to increased risk for serious bacterial infections (SBI). However, the evidence for this association remains controversial. We assessed the predictive value of duration of fever for SBI. Methods: Studies from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases (from January 1991 to December 2009) were retrieved. We included studies describing children aged 2 months to 6 years in countries with high Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination coverage. Duration of fever had to be studied as a predictor for serious bacterial infections. Results: Seven studies assessed the association between duration of fever and serious bacterial infections; three of these found a relationship. Conclusion: The predictive value of duration of fever for identifying serious bacterial infections in children remains inconclusive. None of these seven studies was performed in primary care. Studies evaluating the duration of fever and its predictive value in children in primary care are required