Clinical performance of existing diagnostic criteria for pneumonia in older emergency patients: A prospective cohort study.

Katherine M Hunold, Lorraine C Mion, Tanya R Gure, Andrew L Schwaderer, Matthew Exline, Courtney Hebert, Brent C Lampert, Lauren T Southerland, Julie A Stephens, Edward W Boyer, Michael Hill, Ching-Min B Chu, Carson Reider, Jeffrey M Caterino
{"title":"Clinical performance of existing diagnostic criteria for pneumonia in older emergency patients: A prospective cohort study.","authors":"Katherine M Hunold, Lorraine C Mion, Tanya R Gure, Andrew L Schwaderer, Matthew Exline, Courtney Hebert, Brent C Lampert, Lauren T Southerland, Julie A Stephens, Edward W Boyer, Michael Hill, Ching-Min B Chu, Carson Reider, Jeffrey M Caterino","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pneumonia accounts for over half a million older adult emergency department (ED) visits annually, but ED pneumonia diagnosis is inaccurate. Geriatric-specific pneumonia diagnostic criteria exist for other settings; no prospective data exist to determine if application in the older adult ED population is feasible. The objective was to prospectively evaluate the utility of four current diagnostic criteria (Loeb; Modified McGeer; Infectious Disease Society of America/American Thoracic Society; American College of Emergency Physicians) in older adult ED patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective, observational cohort study of older adult ED patients ≥65 years of age in two U.S. EDs with suspected pneumonia defined as having chest radiography ordered and treating physician suspicion. The standard we used for defining the presence, absence, or inability to determine a diagnosis of pneumonia diagnosis was expert physician chart adjudication. We report the summary statistics for demographic characteristics and symptoms/exam findings and sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals of the existing diagnostic criteria. Pre-specified cutoff values of a positive LR >10 and a negative LR <0.3 were considered clinically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 135 patients enrolled, 27 had pneumonia by adjudicator review. Typical patient-reported pneumonia symptoms, such as fever (18.5%) and new/worse cough (51.9%), were not consistently present in pneumonia. The IDSA/ATS and ACEP criteria had positive LR >10 and negative LR <0.3; however, all confidence intervals included pre-specified cutoffs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Older adults presented to the ED with low frequency of typical pneumonia symptoms. Although existing diagnostic definitions had promising test characteristics, they may not perform well enough for clinical application without refinement.</p>","PeriodicalId":94112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pneumonia accounts for over half a million older adult emergency department (ED) visits annually, but ED pneumonia diagnosis is inaccurate. Geriatric-specific pneumonia diagnostic criteria exist for other settings; no prospective data exist to determine if application in the older adult ED population is feasible. The objective was to prospectively evaluate the utility of four current diagnostic criteria (Loeb; Modified McGeer; Infectious Disease Society of America/American Thoracic Society; American College of Emergency Physicians) in older adult ED patients.

Methods: This was a prospective, observational cohort study of older adult ED patients ≥65 years of age in two U.S. EDs with suspected pneumonia defined as having chest radiography ordered and treating physician suspicion. The standard we used for defining the presence, absence, or inability to determine a diagnosis of pneumonia diagnosis was expert physician chart adjudication. We report the summary statistics for demographic characteristics and symptoms/exam findings and sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios with 95% confidence intervals of the existing diagnostic criteria. Pre-specified cutoff values of a positive LR >10 and a negative LR <0.3 were considered clinically significant.

Results: Of 135 patients enrolled, 27 had pneumonia by adjudicator review. Typical patient-reported pneumonia symptoms, such as fever (18.5%) and new/worse cough (51.9%), were not consistently present in pneumonia. The IDSA/ATS and ACEP criteria had positive LR >10 and negative LR <0.3; however, all confidence intervals included pre-specified cutoffs.

Conclusions: Older adults presented to the ED with low frequency of typical pneumonia symptoms. Although existing diagnostic definitions had promising test characteristics, they may not perform well enough for clinical application without refinement.

老年急诊患者肺炎现有诊断标准的临床表现:前瞻性队列研究。
背景:每年有 50 多万老年人因肺炎到急诊科(ED)就诊,但急诊科肺炎诊断并不准确。目前已有针对其他环境的老年肺炎诊断标准,但尚无前瞻性数据来确定在老年人急诊室人群中应用这些标准是否可行。我们的目的是前瞻性地评估目前四种诊断标准(Loeb、修订版 McGeer、美国传染病学会/美国胸科学会、美国急诊医师学会)在老年急诊室患者中的实用性:这是一项前瞻性的观察性队列研究,研究对象是美国两家急诊室中年龄≥65 岁的老年急诊患者,其疑似肺炎的定义是已接受胸片检查且主治医生怀疑其患有肺炎。我们采用专家医师的病历判定标准来界定是否存在肺炎诊断或无法确定肺炎诊断。我们报告了现有诊断标准的人口统计学特征、症状/检查结果、灵敏度、特异性、似然比及 95% 置信区间的汇总统计。预设的临界值为阳性 LR >10 和阴性 LR 结果:在 135 名入选患者中,经评审员审查,27 人患有肺炎。患者报告的典型肺炎症状,如发热(18.5%)和新发/加重的咳嗽(51.9%),在肺炎中并不总是出现。IDSA/ATS 和 ACEP 标准的阳性 LR >10 和阴性 LR 结论:老年人在急诊室出现典型肺炎症状的频率较低。虽然现有的诊断定义具有很好的测试特性,但如果不加以改进,它们可能无法很好地应用于临床。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信