Dataset Information

Clinical Prediction Models for Suspected Pediatric Foreign Body Aspiration: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Although various clinical prediction models (CPMs) have been described for diagnosing pediatric foreign body aspiration (FBA), to our knowledge, there is still no consensus regarding indications for bronchoscopy, the criterion standard for identifying airway foreign bodies.

Objective

To evaluate currently available CPMs for diagnosing FBA in children.

Data sources

Performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL database with citation searching of retrieved studies.

Study selection

Prediction model derivation and validation studies for diagnosing FBA in children were included. Exclusion criteria included adult studies; studies that included variables that were not available in routine clinical practice and outcomes for FBA were not separate or extractable.

Data extraction and synthesis

We followed the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies and the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool framework. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was the diagnosis of FBA as confirmed by bronchoscopy. Characteristics of CPMs and individual predictors were evaluated. The final model presentation with available measures of performance was provided by narrative synthesis. A meta-analysis of individual predictor variables and prediction models was performed.

Results

After screening 4233 articles, 7 studies (0.2%; 1577 patients) were included in the final analysis. There were 6 model derivation studies and 1 validation study. Air trapping (odds ratio [OR], 8.3; 95% CI, 4.4-15.5), unilateral reduced air entry (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 3.5-6.5), witnessed choking (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.0-9.6), wheezing (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2-5.2), and suspicious findings suggestive of FBA on radiography (OR, 18.5; 95% CI, 5.0-67.7) were the most commonly used predictor variables. Model performance varied, with discrimination scores (C statistic) ranging from 0.74 to 0.88. The pooled weighted C statistic score of all models was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.80-0.92). All studies were deemed to be at high risk of bias, with overfitting of models and lack of validation as the most pertinent concerns.

Conclusions and relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that existing CPMs for FBA in children are at a high risk of bias and have not been adequately validated. No current models can be recommended to guide clinical decision-making. Future CPM studies that adhere to recognized standards for development and validation are required.

SUBMITTER: Lee JJW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8283669 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The clinical manifestations of foreign body (FB) aspiration can range from an asymptomatic presentation to a life-threatening emergency. Patients may present with acute onset cough, chest pain, breathlessness or sub-acutely with unexplained hemoptysis, non-resolving pneumonia and at times, as an incidental finding on imaging. Patients with iatrogenic FB such as an aspirated broken tooth during difficult intubation or a broken instrument are more common scenarios in the intensive care unit (ICU). Patients with post-obstructive pneumonia with or without sepsis, or variable degree of hemoptysis often require ICU level of care and bronchoscopic interventions. Rigid bronchoscopy has traditionally been the modality of choice; however, with the innovation in instrumentation and wider availability of flexible bronchoscopes, most of the FB removal is now successfully performed using flexible bronchoscopy. Proceduralists choose instruments in accordance with their training and expertise. We describe the use of most common instruments including forceps, balloon catheters, and baskets. Role of cryoprobe and LASER in FB removal is reviewed as well. In general, larger working channel bronchoscopes are preferred; however, smaller working channel bronchoscopes may be used in situations when the patients are intubated with a smaller diameter endotracheal or tracheostomy tubes. Large size FB are removed en bloc with the grasping tool, bronchoscope, and endotracheal or tracheostomy tube, requiring preparation to safely re-establish the airway. After FB removal, bronchoscopy is re-performed to identify any residual FB, assess any injury to the airway, suction post-obstructive secretions or pus, control any active bleeding and remove granulation tissue that may be obstructing the airway. Additional interventions like balloon dilatation may be required to dislodge an impacted FB or to maintain patency of bronchial lumen. If bronchoscopic methods fail, surgery may be required for retrieval of FB in symptomatic patients or to resect suppurative or necrotizing lung process. Multidisciplinary approach involving intensivists, surgeons, and anesthesiologists is the key to optimal patient outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo validate all diagnostic prediction models for ruling out pulmonary embolism that are easily applicable in primary care.DesignSystematic review followed by independent external validation study to assess transportability of retrieved models to primary care medicine.Setting300 general practices in the Netherlands.ParticipantsIndividual patient dataset of 598 patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism in primary care.Main outcome measuresDiscriminative ability of all models retrieved by systematic literature search, assessed by calculation and comparison of C statistics. After stratification into groups with high and low probability of pulmonary embolism according to pre-specified model cut-offs combined with qualitative D-dimer test, sensitivity, specificity, efficiency (overall proportion of patients with low probability of pulmonary embolism), and failure rate (proportion of pulmonary embolism cases in group of patients with low probability) were calculated for all models.ResultsTen published prediction models for the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism were found. Five of these models could be validated in the primary care dataset: the original Wells, modified Wells, simplified Wells, revised Geneva, and simplified revised Geneva models. Discriminative ability was comparable for all models (range of C statistic 0.75-0.80). Sensitivity ranged from 88% (simplified revised Geneva) to 96% (simplified Wells) and specificity from 48% (revised Geneva) to 53% (simplified revised Geneva). Efficiency of all models was between 43% and 48%. Differences were observed between failure rates, especially between the simplified Wells and the simplified revised Geneva models (failure rates 1.2% (95% confidence interval 0.2% to 3.3%) and 3.1% (1.4% to 5.9%), respectively; absolute difference -1.98% (-3.33% to -0.74%)). Irrespective of the diagnostic prediction model used, three patients were incorrectly classified as having low probability of pulmonary embolism; pulmonary embolism was diagnosed only after referral to secondary care.ConclusionsFive diagnostic pulmonary embolism prediction models that are easily applicable in primary care were validated in this setting. Whereas efficiency was comparable for all rules, the Wells rules gave the best performance in terms of lower failure rates.