OBJECTIVE: To improve identification of pertussis cases by developing a decision model that incorporates recent, local, population-level disease incidence. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis of 443 infants tested for pertussis (2003-7). MEASUREMENTS: Three models (based on clinical data only, local disease incidence only, and a combination of clinical data and local disease incidence) to predict pertussis positivity were created with demographic, historical, physical exam, and state-wide pertussis data. Models were compared using sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC), and related metrics. RESULTS: The model using only clinical data included cyanosis, cough for 1 week, and absence of fever, and was 89% sensitive (95% CI 79 to 99), 27% specific (95% CI 22 to 32) with an area under the ROC curve of 0.80. The model using only local incidence data performed best when the proportion positive of pertussis cultures in the region exceeded 10% in the 8-14 days prior to the infant's associated visit, achieving 13% sensitivity, 53% specificity, and AUC 0.65. The combined model, built with patient-derived variables and local incidence data, included cyanosis, cough for 1 week, and the variable indicating that the proportion positive of pertussis cultures in the region exceeded 10% 8-14 days prior to the infant's associated visit. This model was 100% sensitive (p<0.04, 95% CI 92 to 100), 38% specific (p<0.001, 95% CI 33 to 43), with AUC 0.82. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating recent, local population-level disease incidence improved the ability of a decision model to correctly identify infants with pertussis. Our findings support fostering bidirectional exchange between public health and clinical practice, and validate a method for integrating large-scale public health datasets with rich clinical data to improve decision-making and public health.
OBJECTIVE: To improve identification of pertussis cases by developing a decision model that incorporates recent, local, population-level disease incidence. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis of 443 infants tested for pertussis (2003-7). MEASUREMENTS: Three models (based on clinical data only, local disease incidence only, and a combination of clinical data and local disease incidence) to predict pertussis positivity were created with demographic, historical, physical exam, and state-wide pertussis data. Models were compared using sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC), and related metrics. RESULTS: The model using only clinical data included cyanosis, cough for 1 week, and absence of fever, and was 89% sensitive (95% CI 79 to 99), 27% specific (95% CI 22 to 32) with an area under the ROC curve of 0.80. The model using only local incidence data performed best when the proportion positive of pertussis cultures in the region exceeded 10% in the 8-14 days prior to the infant's associated visit, achieving 13% sensitivity, 53% specificity, and AUC 0.65. The combined model, built with patient-derived variables and local incidence data, included cyanosis, cough for 1 week, and the variable indicating that the proportion positive of pertussis cultures in the region exceeded 10% 8-14 days prior to the infant's associated visit. This model was 100% sensitive (p<0.04, 95% CI 92 to 100), 38% specific (p<0.001, 95% CI 33 to 43), with AUC 0.82. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating recent, local population-level disease incidence improved the ability of a decision model to correctly identify infants with pertussis. Our findings support fostering bidirectional exchange between public health and clinical practice, and validate a method for integrating large-scale public health datasets with rich clinical data to improve decision-making and public health.
Authors: Danuta M Skowronski; Gaston De Serres; Diane MacDonald; Wrency Wu; Carol Shaw; Jane Macnabb; Sylvie Champagne; David M Patrick; Scott A Halperin Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2002-04-22 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: N Glaser; P Barnett; I McCaslin; D Nelson; J Trainor; J Louie; F Kaufman; K Quayle; M Roback; R Malley; N Kuppermann Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-01-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Anthony E Fiore; David K Shay; Penina Haber; John K Iskander; Timothy M Uyeki; Gina Mootrey; Joseph S Bresee; Nancy J Cox Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2007-07-13
Authors: Mark J Sotir; Dianne L Cappozzo; David M Warshauer; Carol E Schmidt; Timothy A Monson; Jeffrey L Berg; Jean A Zastrow; Gerald W Gabor; Jeffrey P Davis Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2008-01
Authors: Andrew M Fine; John S Brownstein; Lise E Nigrovic; Amir A Kimia; Karen L Olson; Amy D Thompson; Kenneth D Mandl Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2011-01
Authors: Jejo D Koola; Sharon E Davis; Omar Al-Nimri; Sharidan K Parr; Daniel Fabbri; Bradley A Malin; Samuel B Ho; Michael E Matheny Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Paul Walsh; Christina Overmyer; Christine Hancock; Jacquelyn Heffner; Nicholas Walker; Thienphuc Nguyen; Lucas Shanholtzer; Enrique Caldera; James Pusavat; Eli Mordechai; Martin E Adelson; Kathryn T Iacono Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Chaitanya Shivade; Preethi Raghavan; Eric Fosler-Lussier; Peter J Embi; Noemie Elhadad; Stephen B Johnson; Albert M Lai Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Elizabeth Golembiewski; Katie S Allen; Amber M Blackmon; Rachel J Hinrichs; Joshua R Vest Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2019-10-07
Authors: Huan Mo; William K Thompson; Luke V Rasmussen; Jennifer A Pacheco; Guoqian Jiang; Richard Kiefer; Qian Zhu; Jie Xu; Enid Montague; David S Carrell; Todd Lingren; Frank D Mentch; Yizhao Ni; Firas H Wehbe; Peggy L Peissig; Gerard Tromp; Eric B Larson; Christopher G Chute; Jyotishman Pathak; Joshua C Denny; Peter Speltz; Abel N Kho; Gail P Jarvik; Cosmin A Bejan; Marc S Williams; Kenneth Borthwick; Terrie E Kitchner; Dan M Roden; Paul A Harris Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-09-05 Impact factor: 4.497