2020
DOI: 10.1002/ppul.24632
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validation of a computerized scoring system for foreign body aspiration: An observational study

Abstract: Objective The diagnosis of foreign body aspiration (FBA) is challenging. In a previous study, we developed a computerized scoring system (CSS) to support decision‐making. In the present study, we aimed to validate it on a further cohort. Study Design In this observational study, 100 children referred to the emergency department of a tertiary pediatric hospital for suspected FBA and treated according to standard protocol, were assigned a probability score using the CSS, between 0 and 1 (0, very low probability;… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
33
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It showed a sensitivity and specificity of 95 and 70%, respectively [ 25 ]. A recent validation of this score system on 100 children with suspected FBA showed sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 41% [ 26 ]. Scoring systems and clinical algorithms might contribute to decision-making for bronchoscopy in children presenting with suspected FBA.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It showed a sensitivity and specificity of 95 and 70%, respectively [ 25 ]. A recent validation of this score system on 100 children with suspected FBA showed sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 41% [ 26 ]. Scoring systems and clinical algorithms might contribute to decision-making for bronchoscopy in children presenting with suspected FBA.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Inexperienced clinicians may struggle to weigh the benefits of bronchoscopy against the risks associated with it. Scoring systems can help support clinicians with their decision-making (11,28,29).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of these, 64 articles did not meet eligibility criteria and 7 were included in the systematic review. [31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Details of excluded studies are provided eTable 2 in the Supplement.…”
Section: Study Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of the included articles, 6 described newly developed CPMs [31][32][33][34][35]37 and 1 externally validated 1 of these models 36 (Table 1). No internal validation was performed in the model derivation studies.…”
Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation