Dataset Information

A systematic review showing the lack of diagnostic criteria and tools developed for lower-limb cellulitis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cellulitis can be a difficult diagnosis to make. Furthermore, 31% of patients admitted from the emergency department with suspected lower-limb cellulitis have been misdiagnosed, with incorrect treatment potentially resulting in avoidable hospital admission and the prescription of unnecessary antibiotics.

Objectives

We sought to identify diagnostic criteria or tools that have been developed for lower-limb cellulitis.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review using Ovid MEDLINE and Embase databases in May 2018, with the aim of describing diagnostic criteria and tools developed for lower-limb cellulitis, and we assessed the quality of the studies identified using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. We included all types of study that described diagnostic criteria or tools.

Results

Eight observational studies were included. Five studies examined biochemical markers, two studies assessed imaging and one study developed a diagnostic decision model. All eight studies were considered to have a high risk for bias in at least one domain. The quantity and quality of available data was low and results could not be pooled owing to the heterogeneity of the findings.

Conclusions

There is a lack of high-quality publications describing criteria or tools for diagnosing lower-limb cellulitis. Future studies using prospective designs, validated in both primary and secondary care settings, are needed. What's already known about this topic? Diagnosing lower-limb cellulitis on first presentation is challenging. Approximately one in three patients admitted from the emergency department with suspected lower-limb cellulitis do not have cellulitis and are given another diagnosis on discharge. Consequently, this results in potentially avoidable hospital admissions and the prescription of unnecessary antibiotics. There are no diagnostic criteria available for lower-limb cellulitis in the U.K. What does this study add? This systematic review has identified a key research gap in the diagnosis of lower-limb cellulitis. There is a current lack of robustly developed and validated diagnostic criteria or tools for use in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Patel M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6916392 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review showing the lack of diagnostic criteria and tools developed for lower-limb cellulitis.

Patel M M Lee S I SI Akyea R K RK Grindlay D D Francis N N Levell N J NJ Smart P P Kai J J Thomas K S KS

The British journal of dermatology 20190628 6

<h4>Background</h4>Cellulitis can be a difficult diagnosis to make. Furthermore, 31% of patients admitted from the emergency department with suspected lower-limb cellulitis have been misdiagnosed, with incorrect treatment potentially resulting in avoidable hospital admission and the prescription of unnecessary antibiotics.<h4>Objectives</h4>We sought to identify diagnostic criteria or tools that have been developed for lower-limb cellulitis.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a systematic review using ...[more]

PMID: 30844076

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to summarise and analyse the current literature about what progression criteria are applied in loading exercise programmes in lower limb tendinopathies and their evidence and effectiveness.DesignSystematic review.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus and PEDro were searched from inception to 24 September 2020. The inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials that included patients with midportion Achilles, patellar or gluteal tendinopathy; assessed function, pain or performance; included at least one group where progressive physical exercise was administered as monotherapy; included at least a control group. We excluded studies that included subjects with previous tendon surgical treatment; studies with control group that conducted a supplemented modality of the exercise performed in the intervention group. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Cohen's d and the percentage of change of main clinical and performance outcomes were obtained. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale.ResultsThirty studies that described progression criteria were included. Six types of criteria grouped in two categories were identified and included in a new classification proposal: pain as a primary criterion (evoking and avoid-pain based), and pain and symptom control as a secondary criterion (conditioning stages, fatigue-based, subjective perception and temporary linear increase). Most of the studies applied a pain-based criterion. Criteria based on conditioning stages were also commonly applied. Other criteria such as fatigue, a temporary linear increase, or the subjective perception of the patient's abilities were occasionally applied.ConclusionsThere is a predominant use of pain-based criteria, but the utilisation of these criteria is not supported by strong evidence. This review evidences the need for studies that compare the same exercise programme using different progression criteria. A new classification of the existing progression criteria is proposed based on the use of pain as the primary or secondary criterion.Prospero registration numberCRD42018110997.

Project description:BackgroundComputerized migraine diagnostic tools have been developed and validated since 1960. We conducted a systematic review to summarize and critically appraise the quality of all published studies involving computerized migraine diagnostic tools.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, snowballing, and citation searching. Cutoff date for search was 1 June 2021. Published articles in English that evaluated a computerized/automated migraine diagnostic tool were included. The following summarized each study: publication year, digital tool name, development basis, sample size, sensitivity, specificity, reference diagnosis, strength, and limitations. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool was applied to evaluate the quality of included studies in terms of risk of bias and concern of applicability.ResultsA total of 41 studies (median sample size: 288 participants, median age = 43 years; 77% women) were included. Most (60%) tools were developed based on International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria, half were self-administered, and 82% were evaluated using face-to-face interviews as reference diagnosis. Some of the automated algorithms and machine learning programs involved case-based reasoning, deep learning, classifier ensemble, ant-colony, artificial immune, random forest, white and black box combinations, and hybrid fuzzy expert systems. The median diagnostic accuracy was concordance = 89% [interquartile range (IQR) = 76-93%; range = 45-100%], sensitivity = 87% (IQR = 80-95%; range = 14-100%), and specificity = 90% (IQR = 77-96%; range = 65-100%). Lack of random patient sampling was observed in 95% of studies. Case-control designs were avoided in all studies. Most (76%) reference tests exhibited low risk of bias and low concern of applicability. Patient flow and timing showed low risk of bias in 83%.ConclusionDifferent computerized and automated migraine diagnostic tools are available with varying accuracies. Random patient sampling, head-to-head comparison among tools, and generalizability to other headache diagnoses may improve their utility.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare flucloxacillin with clindamycin to flucloxacillin alone for the treatment of limb cellulitis.DesignParallel, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial.SettingEmergency department attendances and general practice referrals within 20 hospitals in England.InterventionsFlucloxacillin, at a minimum of 500 mg 4 times per day for 5 days, with clindamycin 300 mg 4 times per day for 2 days given orally versus flucloxacillin given alone.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was improvement at day 5. This was defined as being afebrile with either a reduction in affected skin surface temperature or a reduction in the circumference of the affected area. Secondary outcomes included resolution of systemic features, resolution of inflammatory markers, recovery of renal function, reduction in the affected area, decrease in pain, return to work or normal activities and the absence of increased side effects.Results410 patients were included in the trial. No significant difference was seen in improvement at day 5 for flucloxacillin with clindamycin (136/156, 87%) versus flucloxacillin alone (140/172, 81%)-OR 1.55 (95% CI 0.81 to 3.01), p=0.174. There was a significant difference in the number of patients with diarrhoea at day 5 in the flucloxacillin with clindamycin allocation (34/160, 22%) versus flucloxacillin alone (16/176, 9%)-OR 2.7 (95% CI 1.41 to 5.07), p=0.002. There was no clinically significant difference in any secondary outcome measures. There was no significant difference in the number of patients stating that they had returned to normal activities at the day 30 interview in the flucloxacillin with clindamycin allocation (99/121, 82%) versus flucloxacillin alone (104/129, 81%)-adjusted OR 0.90 (95% CI 0.44 to 1.84).ConclusionsThe addition of a short course of clindamycin to flucloxacillin early on in limb cellulitis does not improve outcome. The addition of clindamycin doubles the likelihood of diarrhoea within the first few days.Trial registration numberNCT01876628, Results.

Dataset Information

A systematic review showing the lack of diagnostic criteria and tools developed for lower-limb cellulitis.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A systematic review showing the lack of diagnostic criteria and tools developed for lower-limb cellulitis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets