Scoping review of clinical decision aids in the assessment and management of febrile infants under 90 days of age.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 PEDIATRICS BMC Pediatrics Pub Date : 2025-04-04 DOI:10.1186/s12887-025-05619-3
Etimbuk Umana, Hannah Norman-Bruce, Thomas Waterfield
{"title":"Scoping review of clinical decision aids in the assessment and management of febrile infants under 90 days of age.","authors":"Etimbuk Umana, Hannah Norman-Bruce, Thomas Waterfield","doi":"10.1186/s12887-025-05619-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical decision aids (CDA) play an important role in the management of young febrile infants (under 90 days of age) who are at risk of serious or invasive bacterial infections (SBI/IBI). Since 2010, a number of tailored CDAs have been developed that allow for lower-risk infants to be managed safely while undergoing fewer investigations and not receiving parenteral antibiotics. We aimed to map the CDAs developed since 2010, their derivation methodology, and their variable components.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review based on the Joana Briggs Institute framework was conducted for studies published between 2010 and 2025. A database search was conducted using Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane library. Studies evaluating the derivation, validation, and application of CDAs for the assessment of febrile infants were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened, analysed, and extracted data from the literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 32 studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were conducted in North America and Canada (56%), followed by Europe (28%), and Asia (16%). Of the 32 studies, 14 were retrospective, 9 prospective and 9 secondary analysis of an available dataset. There were 32 CDAs that were either derived or validated across 32 studies. The derivation methodology was classified into four themes: (i) expert consensus and evidence synthesis; (ii) regression analysis; (iii) recursive partitioning; and (iv) machine learning. CDAs typically either identified a low-risk cohort through sequential assessment (n = 12) or predicted the risk of IBI/SBI using prediction models (n = 20). CDA sensitivity and specificity ranged from 46 - 100% and 9 - 95% respectively for SBI/IBI. The majority (n = 18) of the more complex CDA prediction models have been published in the last five years. The most common variables included within the CDAs were age, urinalysis, height of fever, C-reactive protein, and absolute neutrophil count.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This scoping review highlights a wide range of CDAs with a trend towards prediction modelling rather than sequential assessment in the last five years. There is still variability in CDA properties, applicability, and diagnostic performance, necessitating further validation of common CDA and prediction models.</p>","PeriodicalId":9144,"journal":{"name":"BMC Pediatrics","volume":"25 1","pages":"274"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11969967/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-025-05619-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinical decision aids (CDA) play an important role in the management of young febrile infants (under 90 days of age) who are at risk of serious or invasive bacterial infections (SBI/IBI). Since 2010, a number of tailored CDAs have been developed that allow for lower-risk infants to be managed safely while undergoing fewer investigations and not receiving parenteral antibiotics. We aimed to map the CDAs developed since 2010, their derivation methodology, and their variable components.

Methods: A scoping review based on the Joana Briggs Institute framework was conducted for studies published between 2010 and 2025. A database search was conducted using Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane library. Studies evaluating the derivation, validation, and application of CDAs for the assessment of febrile infants were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened, analysed, and extracted data from the literature.

Results: A total of 32 studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were conducted in North America and Canada (56%), followed by Europe (28%), and Asia (16%). Of the 32 studies, 14 were retrospective, 9 prospective and 9 secondary analysis of an available dataset. There were 32 CDAs that were either derived or validated across 32 studies. The derivation methodology was classified into four themes: (i) expert consensus and evidence synthesis; (ii) regression analysis; (iii) recursive partitioning; and (iv) machine learning. CDAs typically either identified a low-risk cohort through sequential assessment (n = 12) or predicted the risk of IBI/SBI using prediction models (n = 20). CDA sensitivity and specificity ranged from 46 - 100% and 9 - 95% respectively for SBI/IBI. The majority (n = 18) of the more complex CDA prediction models have been published in the last five years. The most common variables included within the CDAs were age, urinalysis, height of fever, C-reactive protein, and absolute neutrophil count.

Conclusion: This scoping review highlights a wide range of CDAs with a trend towards prediction modelling rather than sequential assessment in the last five years. There is still variability in CDA properties, applicability, and diagnostic performance, necessitating further validation of common CDA and prediction models.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
临床决策的范围审查有助于90天以下发热婴儿的评估和管理。
背景:临床决策辅助(CDA)在有严重或侵袭性细菌感染(SBI/IBI)风险的年轻发热婴儿(90天以下)的管理中发挥重要作用。自2010年以来,已经开发了一些量身定制的cda,使低风险婴儿能够在接受较少检查和不接受肠外抗生素的情况下得到安全管理。我们的目标是绘制自2010年以来开发的cda,其推导方法及其可变成分。方法:基于Joana Briggs研究所框架,对2010年至2025年间发表的研究进行范围审查。使用Medline、Embase、Scopus、Web of Science、谷歌Scholar和Cochrane图书馆进行数据库检索。评估cda用于评估发热婴儿的衍生、验证和应用的研究符合纳入条件。两位审稿人独立筛选、分析和提取文献中的数据。结果:共有32项研究符合纳入标准。大多数研究在北美和加拿大进行(56%),其次是欧洲(28%)和亚洲(16%)。在32项研究中,14项是回顾性的,9项是前瞻性的,9项是对现有数据集的二次分析。在32项研究中,有32个cda得到了衍生或验证。推导方法分为四个主题:(i)专家共识和证据综合;(ii)回归分析;(iii)递归划分;(四)机器学习。cda通常要么通过顺序评估确定低风险队列(n = 12),要么使用预测模型预测IBI/SBI风险(n = 20)。CDA对SBI/IBI的敏感性和特异性分别为46 - 100%和9 - 95%。大多数(n = 18)比较复杂的CDA预测模型是在过去五年中发表的。CDAs中最常见的变量包括年龄、尿液分析、发热高度、c反应蛋白和绝对中性粒细胞计数。结论:这一范围审查突出了广泛的cda与预测建模的趋势,而不是连续评估在过去的五年。在CDA属性、适用性和诊断性能方面仍然存在可变性,需要进一步验证常见的CDA和预测模型。
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 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Pediatrics
BMC Pediatrics PEDIATRICS-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.20%
发文量
683
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Pediatrics is an open access journal publishing peer-reviewed research articles in all aspects of health care in neonates, children and adolescents, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
期刊最新文献
Partially hydrolyzed cow's milk protein formula with an added prebiotic is well-tolerated, safe, and supports age-appropriate growth in healthy term infants through one year of age: DBRCT. Association between dietary folate intake and obesity in children and adolescents: a cross-sectional NHANES study. Left pulmonary aplasia with left pulmonary artery agenesis in a child: case report from Nepal. Gallbladder mucinous carcinoma in a child with metachromatic leukodystrophy, case report and literature review. Association between vitamin D status and insulin resistance in Korean adolescents: differential effects of obesity using non-insulin-based indices.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1