Cassie Hulme, Ronny Gunnarsson, Dan Merenstein, Bruce Barrett, Margareta Ieven, Mark H Ebell
{"title":"How likely is it that a virus or bacteria is causing a patient's symptoms? A new approach to interpret the outcome from multi-pathogen PCR.","authors":"Cassie Hulme, Ronny Gunnarsson, Dan Merenstein, Bruce Barrett, Margareta Ieven, Mark H Ebell","doi":"10.1080/23744235.2025.2456902","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Whether a detected virus or bacteria is a pathogen that may require treatment, or is merely a commensal 'passenger', remains confusing for many infections. This confusion is likely to increase with the wider use of multi-pathogen PCR.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To propose a new statistical procedure to analyse and present data from case-control studies clarifying the probability of causality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a case-control study in US outpatient settings that enrolled patients aged 18 to 75 years with acute lower respiratory tract infection and controls without respiratory symptoms. Patients underwent multi-pathogen PCR testing. The positive etiologic predictive value was calculated to estimate the probability that each potential pathogen was the cause of symptoms. The outcome was illustrated using a modified forest plot and by classifying pathogens into five categories clarifying the probability for causality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We enrolled 618 adult cases and 497 asymptomatic controls. The modified forest plot and the classification of risk for causality aimed to facilitate understanding. Pathogens likely to be causative when present included influenza A and B, SARS-CoV-2, rhinovirus, and parainfluenza viruses, while <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> is almost always commensal. Broad confidence intervals for the positive etiologic predictive value made it difficult to draw conclusions for potential pathogens with low prevalence.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This pilot study shows that the proposed statistical approach is likely to be practical for analysing larger case-control studies or for a meta-analysis of multiple studies. This method may help when interpreting the results from multi-pathogen PCR.</p>","PeriodicalId":73372,"journal":{"name":"Infectious diseases (London, England)","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infectious diseases (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23744235.2025.2456902","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:检测到的病毒或细菌是可能需要治疗的病原体,还是仅仅是共生的 "过客",这在许多感染中仍然是一个令人困惑的问题。随着多病原体 PCR 的广泛使用,这种混淆可能会加剧:提出一种新的统计程序来分析和展示病例对照研究的数据,以澄清因果关系的可能性:我们在美国门诊环境中开展了一项病例对照研究,招募了年龄在 18 岁至 75 岁之间的急性下呼吸道感染患者和无呼吸道症状的对照组。患者接受了多病原体 PCR 检测。通过计算阳性病因预测值,估算出每种潜在病原体导致症状的概率。结果通过改良森林图和将病原体分为五类来说明因果关系的概率:我们招募了 618 名成人病例和 497 名无症状对照者。改良森林图和因果关系风险分类的目的是便于理解。可能致病的病原体包括甲型和乙型流感、SARS-CoV-2、鼻病毒和副流感病毒,而金黄色葡萄球菌几乎总是共感菌。由于阳性病原学预测值的置信区间较宽,因此很难对发病率较低的潜在病原体得出结论:这项试点研究表明,建议的统计方法可能适用于分析大型病例对照研究或多项研究的荟萃分析。这种方法可能有助于解释多种病原体 PCR 的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
How likely is it that a virus or bacteria is causing a patient's symptoms? A new approach to interpret the outcome from multi-pathogen PCR.

Background: Whether a detected virus or bacteria is a pathogen that may require treatment, or is merely a commensal 'passenger', remains confusing for many infections. This confusion is likely to increase with the wider use of multi-pathogen PCR.

Objectives: To propose a new statistical procedure to analyse and present data from case-control studies clarifying the probability of causality.

Methods: We conducted a case-control study in US outpatient settings that enrolled patients aged 18 to 75 years with acute lower respiratory tract infection and controls without respiratory symptoms. Patients underwent multi-pathogen PCR testing. The positive etiologic predictive value was calculated to estimate the probability that each potential pathogen was the cause of symptoms. The outcome was illustrated using a modified forest plot and by classifying pathogens into five categories clarifying the probability for causality.

Results: We enrolled 618 adult cases and 497 asymptomatic controls. The modified forest plot and the classification of risk for causality aimed to facilitate understanding. Pathogens likely to be causative when present included influenza A and B, SARS-CoV-2, rhinovirus, and parainfluenza viruses, while Staphylococcus aureus is almost always commensal. Broad confidence intervals for the positive etiologic predictive value made it difficult to draw conclusions for potential pathogens with low prevalence.

Conclusion: This pilot study shows that the proposed statistical approach is likely to be practical for analysing larger case-control studies or for a meta-analysis of multiple studies. This method may help when interpreting the results from multi-pathogen PCR.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Severity and outcomes of adult respiratory syncytial virus inpatient compared with influenza: observational study from Japan. The descriptive epidemiology of adverse events following two doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in Curaçao, the Caribbean. Comparison of clinical characteristics and outcomes in hospitalized adult patients infected with respiratory syncytial virus and influenza virus. Risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation by HIV-status and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status during pre- and post-Omicron era in a national register-based cohort study in Sweden. Effectiveness of remdesivir in patients with COVID-19 and severe renal insufficiency: a nationwide cohort study in Japan.
×
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:481959085
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