OBJECTIVES: to evaluate the diagnostic value of clinical symptoms and signs in enteric fever and to propose a clinical diagnostic criterion. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Kathmandu Medical College, Teaching Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: febrile patients with clinical diagnosis of enteric fever were included in the study with the aim of confirming diagnosis with blood culture, or bone marrow culture and evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various clinical signs and symptoms. RESULTS: 64% of the clinically diagnosed cases had blood/ bone marrow culture positive. The diagnostic accuracy of the various symptoms and signs excluding fever was between 42%-75.5%. Majority of the symptom and sign did not have very high diagnostic accuracy. Hence a diagnostic criterion was proposed and clinical features with diagnostic accuracy more than 50% were taken into consideration. Major criteria included fever with diagnostic accuracy of 64%, headache with accuracy of 75.5% and relative bradycardia with an accuracy of 66%. Minor criteria included vomiting, diarrhoea, Splenomegaly, chills and abdominal pain /discomfort with diagnostic accuracy of 57%, 55%, 55%, 53% and 51% respectively. Finally after combination of various major and minor criteria a final diagnostic criterion was proposed having an accuracy of 66% and including both major and minor clinical symptom and sign. CONCLUSION: clinical diagnosis of enteric fever will be very helpful in a country like ours. Though none of the clinical symptoms and sign have very high diagnostic accuracy a diagnostic criteria may be helpful. Criteria including both major and minor signs and symptoms would be the most appropriate diagnostic tool as it includes the important abdominal symptoms and signs of enteric fever.
OBJECTIVES: to evaluate the diagnostic value of clinical symptoms and signs in enteric fever and to propose a clinical diagnostic criterion. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Kathmandu Medical College, Teaching Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: febrile patients with clinical diagnosis of enteric fever were included in the study with the aim of confirming diagnosis with blood culture, or bone marrow culture and evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of various clinical signs and symptoms. RESULTS: 64% of the clinically diagnosed cases had blood/ bone marrow culture positive. The diagnostic accuracy of the various symptoms and signs excluding fever was between 42%-75.5%. Majority of the symptom and sign did not have very high diagnostic accuracy. Hence a diagnostic criterion was proposed and clinical features with diagnostic accuracy more than 50% were taken into consideration. Major criteria included fever with diagnostic accuracy of 64%, headache with accuracy of 75.5% and relative bradycardia with an accuracy of 66%. Minor criteria included vomiting, diarrhoea, Splenomegaly, chills and abdominal pain /discomfort with diagnostic accuracy of 57%, 55%, 55%, 53% and 51% respectively. Finally after combination of various major and minor criteria a final diagnostic criterion was proposed having an accuracy of 66% and including both major and minor clinical symptom and sign. CONCLUSION: clinical diagnosis of enteric fever will be very helpful in a country like ours. Though none of the clinical symptoms and sign have very high diagnostic accuracy a diagnostic criteria may be helpful. Criteria including both major and minor signs and symptoms would be the most appropriate diagnostic tool as it includes the important abdominal symptoms and signs of enteric fever.
Authors: Sri Masyeni; Erni Juwita Nelwan; Rois Muqsith Fatawy; Surya Wibawa; Putu Arya Nugraha; Jarwa Antara; Adi Suparta; D G Wedha Asmara; L G Sri Yenny; A A G Budhitresna; Dewi Arimas; Dewi Indriani; Kmg Parwata; Ketut Sutarjana; Eka Sugiartha; Siska Kahari; Clareza Arief Wardhana; A A G Indraningrat; Kadek Mulyantari; Arya Widiyana Pasek; Oka Putrawan; Nyoman Trisna Yustiani; Gede Wardana; Made Indra Wijaya; Suka Aryana; Yuli Gayatri; Dewi Dian Sukmawati; Ketut Suastika; Tuti Parwati Merati; Made Bakta; Raka Widiana Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 3.752