Identifying a child with pneumonia in the large group of children with acute respiratory tract infections can be challenging for primary care physicians. Knowledge on the diagnostic value of specific signs and symptoms may guide future decision rules and guidelines for clinicians. We aimed to identify and systematically review available evidence for the diagnostic value of signs, symptoms, and additional tests to diagnose pneumonia in children in an ambulatory setting in developed countries. We conducted a systematic review, searching in the electronic databases of PubMed and Embase. Quality assessment of studies was done using the QUADAS-2 criteria. After data extraction from selected studies, we calculated and summarized test characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values) of all available signs, symptoms, additional laboratory tests, and chest ultrasonography. The original search yielded 4665 records, of which 17 articles were eligible for analysis: 12 studies on signs and symptoms, 4 on additional laboratory tests, and 6 on ultrasonography. All included studies were performed in a secondary care setting. Risk of bias was present in the majority of studies in the domain of patient selection. Prevalence of pneumonia varied from 3.4% to 71.7%. The diagnostic value of the available 27 individual signs and symptoms to identify pneumonia was low. In a low prevalence setting, (4 studies, pneumonia prevalence <10%) clinically ill appearance of the child and oxygen saturation <94% can aid a physician. In a high prevalence setting (10 studies, pneumonia >10%), additional diagnostic tests such as oxygen saturation, C-reactive protein, and white blood cell count are more promising. Chest ultrasonography showed high diagnostic value in settings with higher prevalence of pneumonia. Single signs and symptoms from medical history and physical examination or individual additional diagnostic tests are insufficient to diagnose pneumonia in ambulant children. Very few diagnostic studies are conducted in settings with low prevalence of pneumonia. Future research in low prevalence settings should focus on the diagnostic value of the combination of clinical features and additional testing possibly using meta-analysis of individual data.
While there are many alternatives to antibiotics for the symptomatic treatment of urinary tract infections (UTIs), their application in practice is limited. Among other things, general practitioners (GPs) often feel pressure from patients to prescribe antibiotics. To gain a better understanding of why this happens and where this pressure originates from, we investigated experiences, expectations, motivations, and perspectives of patients with UTIs in general practice. During this qualitative study we performed 14 semi-structured online interviews among female UTI patients in general practice. Interviews were based on a topic list derived from sensitising concepts. All the interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using a constant comparative technique. Three main categories emerged from the data; (1) experienced versus unexperienced patients with UTI, (2) patient’s lack of knowledge, and (3) patients feeling understood. Inexperienced patients consult a general practitioner for both diagnosis and symptom relief, while experienced patients seem to consult specifically to obtain antibiotics. In addition, patients have a lack of knowledge with regard to the diagnosis, treatment, self-care, and cause of UTIs. Finally, patients’ satisfaction is increased by involving them more in the process of decision making, so they feel understood and taken seriously. Patients’ expectations in UTI management in general practice often arise during their first experience(s) and play a major role in subsequent episodes. In conclusion, preventing misconceptions is especially important in the inexperienced patient group, as this may prevent future overtreatment of UTIs. In addition, involving patients in the decision making process will lead to greater understanding of the GP’s treatment choices.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.