OBJECTIVES: A positive tourniquet test is one of several clinical parameters considered by the World Health Organization to be important in the diagnosis of dengue haemorrhagic fever, but no formal evaluation of the test has been undertaken. As many doctors remain unconvinced of its usefulness, this study was designed to assess the diagnostic utility of both the standard test and a commonly employed modified test. METHODS: A prospective evaluation of the standard sphygmomanometer cuff tourniquet test, compared with a simple elastic cuff tourniquet test, was carried out in 1136 children with suspected dengue infection admitted to a provincial paediatric hospital in southern Viet Nam. RESULTS: There was good agreement between independent observers for both techniques, but the sphygmomanometer method resulted in consistently greater numbers of petechiae. This standard method had a sensitivity of 41.6% for dengue infection, with a specificity of 94.4%, positive predictive value of 98.3% and negative predictive value of 17.3%. The test differentiated poorly between dengue haemorrhagic fever (45% positive) and dengue fever (38% positive). The simple elastic tourniquet was less sensitive than the sphygmomanometer cuff, but at a threshold of 10 petechiae (compared with the WHO recommendation of 20) per 2.5 cm2 the sensitivity for the elastic tourniquet rose to 45% (specificity 85%). Other evidence of bleeding was frequently present and the tourniquet test provided additional information to aid diagnosis in only 5% of cases. CONCLUSION: The conventional tourniquet test adds little to the diagnosis of dengue in hospitalized children. The simple, cheap elastic tourniquet may be useful in diagnosing dengue infection in busy rural health stations in dengue endemic areas of the tropics. A positive test should prompt close observation or early hospital referral, but a negative test does not exclude dengue infection.
OBJECTIVES: A positive tourniquet test is one of several clinical parameters considered by the World Health Organization to be important in the diagnosis of dengue haemorrhagic fever, but no formal evaluation of the test has been undertaken. As many doctors remain unconvinced of its usefulness, this study was designed to assess the diagnostic utility of both the standard test and a commonly employed modified test. METHODS: A prospective evaluation of the standard sphygmomanometer cuff tourniquet test, compared with a simple elastic cuff tourniquet test, was carried out in 1136 children with suspected dengue infection admitted to a provincial paediatric hospital in southern Viet Nam. RESULTS: There was good agreement between independent observers for both techniques, but the sphygmomanometer method resulted in consistently greater numbers of petechiae. This standard method had a sensitivity of 41.6% for dengue infection, with a specificity of 94.4%, positive predictive value of 98.3% and negative predictive value of 17.3%. The test differentiated poorly between dengue haemorrhagic fever (45% positive) and dengue fever (38% positive). The simple elastic tourniquet was less sensitive than the sphygmomanometer cuff, but at a threshold of 10 petechiae (compared with the WHO recommendation of 20) per 2.5 cm2 the sensitivity for the elastic tourniquet rose to 45% (specificity 85%). Other evidence of bleeding was frequently present and the tourniquet test provided additional information to aid diagnosis in only 5% of cases. CONCLUSION: The conventional tourniquet test adds little to the diagnosis of dengue in hospitalized children. The simple, cheap elastic tourniquet may be useful in diagnosing dengue infection in busy rural health stations in dengue endemic areas of the tropics. A positive test should prompt close observation or early hospital referral, but a negative test does not exclude dengue infection.
Authors: Anon Srikiatkhachorn; Robert V Gibbons; Sharone Green; Daniel H Libraty; Stephen J Thomas; Timothy P Endy; David W Vaughn; Ananda Nisalak; Francis A Ennis; Alan L Rothman; Suchitra Nimmannitaya; Siripen Kalayanarooj Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: James A Potts; Stephen J Thomas; Anon Srikiatkhachorn; Pra-on Supradish; Wenjun Li; Ananda Nisalak; Suchitra Nimmannitya; Timothy P Endy; Daniel H Libraty; Robert V Gibbons; Sharone Green; Alan L Rothman; Siripen Kalayanarooj Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Victoria Ward; Branwen J Hennig; Kouzo Hirai; Hideki Tahara; Akihiro Tamori; Ritu Dawes; Mineki Saito; Charles Bangham; Henry Stephens; Anne E Goldfeld; Warunee Kunachiwa; Nipapan Leetrakool; Julian Hopkin; Sarah Dunstan; Adrian Hill; Walter Bodmer; Peter C L Beverley; Elma Z Tchilian Journal: Immunogenetics Date: 2006-03-15 Impact factor: 2.846
Authors: Eric Lopez Rodriguez; Kay M Tomashek; Christopher J Gregory; Jorge Munoz; Elizabeth Hunsperger; Olga D Lorenzi; Jorge Gutierrez Irizarry; Carlos Garcia-Gubern Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Mayfong Mayxay; Rattanaphone Phetsouvanh; Catrin E Moore; Vilada Chansamouth; Manivanh Vongsouvath; Syho Sisouphone; Pankham Vongphachanh; Thaksinaporn Thaojaikong; Soulignasack Thongpaseuth; Simmaly Phongmany; Valy Keolouangkhot; Michel Strobel; Paul N Newton Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Yee-Sin Leo; Tun L Thein; Dale A Fisher; Jenny G Low; Helen M Oh; Rajmohan L Narayanan; Victor C Gan; Vernon J Lee; David C Lye Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 3.090