Mark H Ebell1, Jens Georg Hansen2. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia ebell@uga.edu. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, we sought to develop a clinical decision rule for the diagnosis of acute rhinosinusitis and acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. METHODS: Multivariate analysis and classification and regression tree (CART) analysis were used to develop clinical decision rules for the diagnosis of acute rhinosinusitis, defined using 3 different reference standards (purulent antral puncture fluid or abnormal finding on a computed tomographic (CT) scan; for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, we used a positive bacterial culture of antral fluid). Signs, symptoms, C-reactive protein (CRP), and reference standard tests were prospectively recorded in 175 Danish patients aged 18 to 65 years seeking care for suspected acute rhinosinusitis. For each reference standard, we developed 2 clinical decision rules: a point score based on a logistic regression model and an algorithm based on a CART model. We identified low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups for acute rhinosinusitis or acute bacterial rhinosinusitis for each clinical decision rule. RESULTS: The point scores each had between 5 and 6 predictors, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC) between 0.721 and 0.767. For positive bacterial culture as the reference standard, low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups had a 16%, 49%, and 73% likelihood of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, respectively. CART models had an AUROCC ranging from 0.783 to 0.827. For positive bacterial culture as the reference standard, low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups had a likelihood of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis of 6%, 31%, and 59% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a series of clinical decision rules integrating signs, symptoms, and CRP to diagnose acute rhinosinusitis and acute bacterial rhinosinusitis with good accuracy. They now require prospective validation and an assessment of their effect on clinical and process outcomes.
PURPOSE: To reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, we sought to develop a clinical decision rule for the diagnosis of acute rhinosinusitis and acute bacterial rhinosinusitis. METHODS: Multivariate analysis and classification and regression tree (CART) analysis were used to develop clinical decision rules for the diagnosis of acute rhinosinusitis, defined using 3 different reference standards (purulent antral puncture fluid or abnormal finding on a computed tomographic (CT) scan; for acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, we used a positive bacterial culture of antral fluid). Signs, symptoms, C-reactive protein (CRP), and reference standard tests were prospectively recorded in 175 Danish patients aged 18 to 65 years seeking care for suspected acute rhinosinusitis. For each reference standard, we developed 2 clinical decision rules: a point score based on a logistic regression model and an algorithm based on a CART model. We identified low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups for acute rhinosinusitis or acute bacterial rhinosinusitis for each clinical decision rule. RESULTS: The point scores each had between 5 and 6 predictors, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCC) between 0.721 and 0.767. For positive bacterial culture as the reference standard, low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups had a 16%, 49%, and 73% likelihood of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis, respectively. CART models had an AUROCC ranging from 0.783 to 0.827. For positive bacterial culture as the reference standard, low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups had a likelihood of acute bacterial rhinosinusitis of 6%, 31%, and 59% respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a series of clinical decision rules integrating signs, symptoms, and CRP to diagnose acute rhinosinusitis and acute bacterial rhinosinusitis with good accuracy. They now require prospective validation and an assessment of their effect on clinical and process outcomes.
Authors: Afina S Glas; Jeroen G Lijmer; Martin H Prins; Gouke J Bonsel; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Paul Little; Sheila Turner; Kate Rumsby; Rachel Jones; Greg Warner; Michael Moore; J Andrew Lowes; Helen Smith; Catherine Hawke; Geraldine Leydon; Mark Mullee Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Raymond Oppong; Mark Jit; Richard D Smith; Christopher C Butler; Hasse Melbye; Sigvard Mölstad; Joanna Coast Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; Nancy R Cook; Thomas Gerds; Mithat Gonen; Nancy Obuchowski; Michael J Pencina; Michael W Kattan Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Johann Steurer; Ulrike Held; Anne Spaar; Birke Bausch; Marco Zoller; Roger Hunziker; Lucas M Bachmann Journal: BMC Med Date: 2011-05-13 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Saskia F van Vugt; Berna D L Broekhuizen; Christine Lammens; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Pim A de Jong; Samuel Coenen; Margareta Ieven; Chris C Butler; Herman Goossens; Paul Little; Theo J M Verheij Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-04-30
Authors: Marieke B Lemiengre; Mieke L van Driel; Dan Merenstein; Helena Liira; Marjukka Mäkelä; An Im De Sutter Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-09-10
Authors: Roderick Venekamp; Jens Georg Hansen; Johannes B Reitsma; Mark H Ebell; Morten Lindbaek Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Roderick P Venekamp; Jeroen Hoogland; Maarten van Smeden; Maroeska M Rovers; An I De Sutter; Daniel Merenstein; Gerrit A van Essen; Laurent Kaiser; Helena Liira; Paul Little; Heiner Cc Bucher; Johannes B Reitsma Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 2.692