The DAWN antivirals trial: process evaluation of a COVID-19 trial in general practice.

BACKGROUND: The DAWN Antivirals trial was a multicentric, randomised placebo-controlled trial evaluating antiviral medication for COVID-19 in general practice. The trial was prematurely terminated because of insufficient recruitment. AIM: To explore which factors contributed to the premature termination. DESIGN & SETTING: General practice in Belgium. METHOD: Patients were randomized to camostat or placebo (blinded) between June 2021 and July 2022); a third arm evaluating molnupiravir (open label) was opened in March 2022. We analysed available trial data and evaluated trial context, implementation and mechanisms of impact based on semi-structured interviews with trial stakeholders. RESULTS: The trial recruited 44 participants; 19 were allocated to camostat (median age 55 years), 8 to molnupiravir (median age 60 years) and 17 to placebo (median age 56 years). There were no serious adverse events in either group. Most difficulties were related to the pandemic context: disruption to routine clinical services; multiple changes to the service model for COVID-19 patients; overwhelmed clinical staff; delays of trial medication; staff shortages in the sponsor and clinical team. In addition, regulatory approval processes were lengthy and led to additional study procedures. It was felt that the trial started too late, when vaccinations had already begun. CONCLUSION: The DAWN Antivirals trial was stopped prematurely. Although many barriers were related to the pandemic itself, hurdles such as small and inexperienced sponsor and clinical teams, delays in regulatory processes and research capacity in routine settings could be overcome by established research infrastructure and standardization of processes.

Validation of a rapid SARS-CoV-2 antibody test in general practice.

OBJECTIVES: To validate a rapid serological test (RST) for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies used in seroprevalence studies in healthcare providers, including primary healthcare providers (PHCPs) in Belgium. DESIGN: A phase III validation study of the RST (OrientGene) within a prospective cohort study. SETTING: Primary care in Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: Any general practitioner (GP) working in primary care in Belgium and any other PHCP from the same GP practice who physically manages patients were eligible in the seroprevalence study. For the validation study, all participants who tested positive (376) on the RST at the first testing timepoint (T1) and a random sample of those who tested negative (790) and unclear (24) were included. INTERVENTION: At T2, 4 weeks later, PHCPs performed the RST with fingerprick blood (index test) immediately after providing a serum sample to be analysed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G antibodies using a two-out-of-three assay (reference test). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The RST accuracy was estimated using inverse probability weighting to correct for missing reference test data, and considering unclear RST results as negative for the sensitivity and positive for the specificity. Using these conservative estimates, the true seroprevalence was estimated both for T2 and RST-based prevalence values found in a cohort study with PHCPs in Belgium. RESULTS: 1073 paired tests (403 positive on the reference test) were included. A sensitivity of 73% (a specificity of 92%) was found considering unclear RST results as negative (positive). For an RST-based prevalence at T1 (13.9), T2 (24.9) and T7 (70.21), the true prevalence was estimated to be 9.1%, 25.9% and 95.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The RST sensitivity (73%) and specificity (92%) make an RST-based seroprevalence below (above) 23% overestimate (underestimate) the true seroprevalence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04779424.

What is the Diagnostic Accuracy of Novel Urine Biomarkers for Urinary Tract Infection?

Background: Urinary tract infection (UTI) affects half of women at least once in their lifetime. Current diagnosis involves urinary dipstick and urine culture, yet both methods have modest diagnostic accuracy, and cannot support decision-making in patient populations with high prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria, such as older adults. Detecting biomarkers of host response in the urine of hosts has the potential to improve diagnosis. Objectives: To synthesise the evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of novel biomarkers for UTI, and of their ability to differentiate UTI from asymptomatic bacteriuria. Design: A systematic review. Data Sources and Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science for studies of novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of UTI. We excluded studies assessing biomarkers included in urine dipsticks as these have been well described previously. We included studies of adult patients (≥16 years) with a suspected or confirmed urinary tract infection using microscopy and culture as the reference standard. We excluded studies using clinical signs and symptoms, or urine dipstick only as a reference standard. Quality appraisal was performed using QUADAS-2. We summarised our data using point estimates and data accuracy statistics. Results: We included 37 studies on 4009 adults measuring 66 biomarkers. Study quality was limited by case-control design and study size; only 4 included studies had a prospective cohort design. IL-6 and IL-8 were the most studied biomarkers. We found plausible evidence to suggest that IL-8, IL-6, GRO-a, sTNF-1, sTNF-2 and MCR may benefit from more rigorous evaluation of their potential diagnostic value for UTI. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of any novel biomarker for UTI diagnosis at present. Further evaluation of the more promising candidates, is needed before they can be recommended for clinical use.

Diagnostic accuracy of blood tests of inflammation in paediatric appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Possible childhood appendicitis is a common emergency presentation. The exact value of blood tests is debated. This study sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of four blood tests (white cell count (WCC), neutrophil(count or percentage), C reactive protein (CRP) and/or procalcitonin) for childhood appendicitis. DESIGN: A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, Web of Science searched from inception-March 2022 with reference searching and authors contacted for missing/unclear data. Eligibility criteria was studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of the four blood tests compared to the reference standard (histology or follow-up). Risk of bias was assessed (QUADAS-2), pooled sensitivity and specificity were generated for each test and commonly presented cut-offs. To provide insight into clinical impact, we present strategies using a hypothetical cohort. RESULTS: 67 studies were included (34 839 children, 13 342 with appendicitis), all in the hospital setting. The most sensitive tests were WCC (≥10 000 cells/µL, 53 studies sensitivity 0.85 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.89)) and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) (≥7500 cells/µL, five studies sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.94)). Combination of WCC or CRP increased sensitivity further(≥10 000 cells/µL or ≥10 mg/L, individual patient data (IPD) of 6 studies, 0.97 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.99)).Applying results to a hypothetical cohort(1000 children with appendicitis symptoms, of whom 400 have appendicitis) 60 and 40 children would be wrongly discharged based solely on WCC and ANC, respectively, 12 with combination of WCC or CRP.The most specific tests were CRP alone (≥50 mg/L, 38 studies, specificity 0.87 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.91)) or combined with WCC (≥10 000 cells/µL and ≥50 mg/L, IPD of six studies, 0.93 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.95)). CONCLUSIONS: The best performing single blood tests for ruling-out paediatric appendicitis are WCC or ANC; with accuracy improved combining WCC and CRP. These tests could be used at the point of care in combination with clinical prediction rules. We provide insight into the best cut-offs for clinical application. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017080036.

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology. OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases. SEARCH METHODS: The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

Do doctors and other healthcare professionals know overdiagnosis in screening and how are they dealing with it? A protocol for a mixed methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Overdiagnosis is the diagnosis of a disease that would never have caused any symptom or problem. It is a harmful side effect of screening and may lead to unnecessary treatment, costs and emotional drawbacks. Doctors and other healthcare professionals (HCPs) have the opportunity to mitigate these consequences, not only by informing their patients or the public but also by adjusting screening methods or even by refraining from screening. However, it is unclear to what extent HCPs are fully aware of overdiagnosis and whether it affects their screening decisions. With this systematic review, we aim to synthesise all available research about what HCPs know and think about overdiagnosis, how it affects their position on screening policy and whether they think patients and the public should be informed about it. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search several databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycArticles) for studies that directly examine HCPs' knowledge and subjective perceptions of overdiagnosis due to health screening, both qualitatively and quantitatively. We will optimise our search by scanning reference and citation lists, contacting experts in the field and hand searching abstracts from the annual conference on 'Preventing Overdiagnosis'. After selection and quality appraisal, we will analyse qualitative and quantitative findings separately in a segregated design for mixed-method reviews. The data will be examined and presented descriptively. If the retrieved studies allow it, we will review them from a constructivist perspective through a critical interpretive synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: For this type of research, no ethical approval is required. Findings from this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at the annual congress of 'Preventing Overdiagnosis'. In addition, the results will serve as guidance for further research on this topic. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021244513.

Prevalence, incidence and longevity of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among primary healthcare providers in Belgium: a prospective cohort study with 12 months of follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence, incidence and longevity of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among primary healthcare providers (PHCPs). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with 12 months of follow-up. SETTING: Primary care in Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: Any general practitioner (GP) working in primary care in Belgium and any other PHCP from the same GP practice who physically manages (examines, tests, treats) patients were eligible. A convenience sample of 3648 eligible PHCPs from 2001 GP practices registered for this study (3044 and 604 to start in December 2020 and January 2021, respectively). 3390 PHCPs (92,9%) participated in their first testing time point (2820 and 565, respectively) and 2557 PHCPs (70,1%) in the last testing time point (December 2021). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were asked to perform a rapid serological test targeting IgM and IgG against the receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 and to complete an online questionnaire at each of maximum eight testing time points. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The prevalence, incidence and longevity of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 both after natural infection and after vaccination. RESULTS: Among all participants, 67% were women and 77% GPs. Median age was 43 years. The seroprevalence in December 2020 (before vaccination availability) was 15.1% (95% CI 13.5% to 16.6%), increased to 84.2% (95% CI 82.9% to 85.5%) in March 2021 (after vaccination availability) and reached 93.9% (95% CI 92.9% to 94.9%) in December 2021 (during booster vaccination availability and fourth (delta variant dominant) COVID-19 wave). Among not (yet) vaccinated participants the first monthly incidence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was estimated to be 2.91% (95% CI 1.80% to 4.01%). The longevity of antibodies is higher in PHCPs with self-reported COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that occupational health measures provided sufficient protection when managing patients. High uptake of vaccination resulted in high seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in PHCPs in Belgium. Longevity of antibodies was supported by booster vaccination and virus circulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04779424.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. MAIN RESULTS: We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.

GPs' perspectives on diagnosing childhood urinary tract infections: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis and management of childhood urinary tract infection (UTI) is challenging in general practice because of a range of factors. AIM: To explore GPs' perspectives concerning the barriers to and facilitators for diagnosis and management of childhood UTI. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study in general practice in Belgium. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with 23 GPs from January 2021 to June 2021 were carried out. Interviews were video-recorded and audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: The barriers to early diagnosis of UTI were the assumption of low UTI prevalence and aspecific presentation of UTI in children, difficulties in urine collection, and diagnostic uncertainty. All GPs indicated that they sampled urine in either children with specific UTI features (for example, dysuria, abdominal pain) or unexplained fever. Facilitators for UTI screening were instructional material for parents, skill training for GPs, additional nursing staff, novel non-invasive convenient collection methods, online decision support informing parents when to bring a urine sample to the consultation, and an accurate, easy-to-use point-of-care test for UTI. Empirical antibiotic treatment was initiated based on dipstick test results, clinical features suggestive of UTI, severity of illness, gut feeling, long duration of fever, time of the day, and parents' ability to judge disease severity. CONCLUSION: The assumption of a low UTI prevalence, absence of obvious UTI features, and difficult urine sampling might cause childhood UTIs to go undetected in general practice. Diagnostic uncertainty makes appropriate treatment challenging.

Incidence rates and trends of childhood urinary tract infections and antibiotic prescribing: registry-based study in general practices (2000 to 2020).

BACKGROUND: To improve the management of childhood urinary tract infections, it is essential to understand the incidence rates, testing and treatment strategy. METHODS: A retrospective study using data from 45 to 104 general practices (2000 to 2020) in Flanders (Belgium). We calculated the incidence rates (per 1000 person-years) of cystitis, pyelonephritis, and lab-based urine tests per age (< 2, 2-4, 5-9 and 10-18 years)) and gender in children and performed an autoregressive time-series analysis and seasonality analysis. In children with UTI, we calculated the number of lab-based urine tests and antibiotic prescriptions per person-year and performed an autoregressive time-series analysis. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant increase in the number of UTI episodes from 2000 to 2020 in each age group (p < 0.05), except in boys 2-4 years. Overall, the change in incidence rate was low. In 2020, the incidence rates of cystitis were highest in girls 2-4 years old (40.3 /1000 person-years 95%CI 34.5-46.7) and lowest in boys 10-18 (2.6 /1000 person-years 95%CI 1.8-3.6) The incidence rates of pyelonephritis were highest in girls 2-4 years (5.5, 95%CI 3.5-8.1 /1000 person-years) and children < 2 years of age (boys: 5.4, 95%CI 3.1-8.8 and girls: 4.9, 95%CI 2.7-8.8 /1000 person-years). In children 2-10 years, there was an increase in number of lab-based urine tests per cystitis episode per year and a decrease in total number of electronic antibiotic prescriptions per cystitis episode per year, from 2000 to 2020. In children with cystitis < 10 years in 2020, 51% (95%CI 47-56%) received an electronic antibiotic prescription, of which the majority were broad-spectrum agents. CONCLUSIONS: Over the last 21 years, there was a slight increase in the number of UTI episodes diagnosed in children in Flemish general practices, although the overall change was low. More targeted antibiotic therapy for cystitis in accordance with clinical guidelines is necessary to reduce the use of broad-spectrum agents in children below 10 years.

Thoracic imaging tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Our March 2021 edition of this review showed thoracic imaging computed tomography (CT) to be sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia. This new edition is an update of the review. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in people with suspected COVID-19; assess the rate of positive imaging in people who had an initial reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negative result and a positive RT-PCR result on follow-up; and evaluate the accuracy of thoracic imaging for screening COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals. The secondary objective was to assess threshold effects of index test positivity on accuracy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, The Stephen B. Thacker CDC Library, and repositories of COVID-19 publications through to 17 February 2021. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies of all designs, except for case-control, that recruited participants of any age group suspected to have COVID-19. Studies had to assess chest CT, chest X-ray, or ultrasound of the lungs for the diagnosis of COVID-19, use a reference standard that included RT-PCR, and report estimates of test accuracy or provide data from which we could compute estimates. We excluded studies that used imaging as part of the reference standard and studies that excluded participants with normal index test results. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently and in duplicate screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability concerns using QUADAS-2. We presented sensitivity and specificity per study on paired forest plots, and summarized pooled estimates in tables. We used a bivariate meta-analysis model where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included 98 studies in this review. Of these, 94 were included for evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic imaging in the evaluation of people with suspected COVID-19. Eight studies were included for assessing the rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results and positive RT-PCR results on follow-up, and 10 studies were included for evaluating the accuracy of thoracic imaging for imagining asymptomatic individuals. For all 98 included studies, risk of bias was high or unclear in 52 (53%) studies with respect to participant selection, in 64 (65%) studies with respect to reference standard, in 46 (47%) studies with respect to index test, and in 48 (49%) studies with respect to flow and timing. Concerns about the applicability of the evidence to: participants were high or unclear in eight (8%) studies; index test were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies; and reference standard were high or unclear in seven (7%) studies. Imaging in people with suspected COVID-19 We included 94 studies. Eighty-seven studies evaluated one imaging modality, and seven studies evaluated two imaging modalities. All studies used RT-PCR alone or in combination with other criteria (for example, clinical signs and symptoms, positive contacts) as the reference standard for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (69 studies, 28285 participants, 14,342 (51%) cases), sensitivities ranged from 45% to 100%, and specificities from 10% to 99%. The pooled sensitivity of chest CT was 86.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6 to 89.6), and pooled specificity was 78.3% (95% CI 73.7 to 82.3). Definition for index test positivity was a source of heterogeneity for sensitivity, but not specificity. Reference standard was not a source of heterogeneity. For chest X-ray (17 studies, 8529 participants, 5303 (62%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 44% to 94% and specificity from 24 to 93%. The pooled sensitivity of chest X-ray was 73.1% (95% CI 64. to -80.5), and pooled specificity was 73.3% (95% CI 61.9 to 82.2). Definition for index test positivity was not found to be a source of heterogeneity. Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. For ultrasound of the lungs (15 studies, 2410 participants, 1158 (48%) cases), the sensitivity ranged from 73% to 94% and the specificity ranged from 21% to 98%. The pooled sensitivity of ultrasound was 88.9% (95% CI 84.9 to 92.0), and the pooled specificity was 72.2% (95% CI 58.8 to 82.5). Definition for index test positivity and reference standard were not found to be sources of heterogeneity. Indirect comparisons of modalities evaluated across all 94 studies indicated that chest CT and ultrasound gave higher sensitivity estimates than X-ray (P = 0.0003 and P = 0.001, respectively). Chest CT and ultrasound gave similar sensitivities (P=0.42). All modalities had similar specificities (CT versus X-ray P = 0.36; CT versus ultrasound P = 0.32; X-ray versus ultrasound P = 0.89). Imaging in PCR-negative people who subsequently became positive For rate of positive imaging in individuals with initial RT-PCR negative results, we included 8 studies (7 CT, 1 ultrasound) with a total of 198 participants suspected of having COVID-19, all of whom had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. Most studies (7/8) evaluated CT. Of 177 participants with initially negative RT-PCR who had positive RT-PCR results on follow-up testing, 75.8% (95% CI 45.3 to 92.2) had positive CT findings. Imaging in asymptomatic PCR-positive people For imaging asymptomatic individuals, we included 10 studies (7 CT, 1 X-ray, 2 ultrasound) with a total of 3548 asymptomatic participants, of whom 364 (10%) had a final diagnosis of COVID-19. For chest CT (7 studies, 3134 participants, 315 (10%) cases), the pooled sensitivity was 55.7% (95% CI 35.4 to 74.3) and the pooled specificity was 91.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 95.7). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Chest CT and ultrasound of the lungs are sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Chest X-ray is moderately sensitive and moderately specific in diagnosing COVID-19. Thus, chest CT and ultrasound may have more utility for ruling out COVID-19 than for differentiating SARS-CoV-2 infection from other causes of respiratory illness. The uncertainty resulting from high or unclear risk of bias and the heterogeneity of included studies limit our ability to confidently draw conclusions based on our results.

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 illness is highly variable, ranging from infection with no symptoms through to pneumonia and life-threatening consequences. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of sense of smell (anosmia) or taste (ageusia), can help flag early on if the disease is present. Such information could be used either to rule out COVID-19 disease, or to identify people who need to go for COVID-19 diagnostic tests. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We undertook electronic searches up to 10 June 2021 in the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We used artificial intelligence text analysis to conduct an initial classification of documents. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included people with clinically suspected COVID-19, or recruited known cases with COVID-19 and also controls without COVID-19 from a single-gate cohort. Studies were eligible when they recruited people presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies that included people who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract, and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist, and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Analyses were restricted to prospective studies only. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary prospective studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 90 studies; for this update we focused on the results of 42 prospective studies with 52,608 participants. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 3.7% to 60.6% with a median of 27.4%. Thirty-five studies were set in emergency departments or outpatient test centres (46,878 participants), three in primary care settings (1230 participants), two in a mixed population of in- and outpatients in a paediatric hospital setting (493 participants), and two overlapping studies in nursing homes (4007 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild COVID-19 disease from COVID-19 pneumonia, so we present the results for both conditions together. Twelve studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because they used a high level of preselection to decide whether reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was needed, or because they enrolled a non-consecutive sample, or because they excluded individuals while they were part of the study base. We rated 36 of the 42 studies as high risk of bias for the index tests because there was little or no detail on how, by whom and when, the symptoms were measured. For most studies, eligibility for testing was dependent on the local case definition and testing criteria that were in effect at the time of the study, meaning most people who were included in studies had already been referred to health services based on the symptoms that we are evaluating in this review. The applicability of the results of this review iteration improved in comparison with the previous reviews. This version has more studies of people presenting to ambulatory settings, which is where the majority of assessments for COVID-19 take place. Only three studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 96 symptoms or combinations of signs and symptoms. Evidence on individual signs as diagnostic tests was rarely reported, so this review reports mainly on the diagnostic value of symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. RT-PCR was the most often used reference standard (40/42 studies). Only cough (11 studies) had a summary sensitivity above 50% (62.4%, 95% CI 50.6% to 72.9%)); its specificity was low (45.4%, 95% CI 33.5% to 57.9%)). Presence of fever had a sensitivity of 37.6% (95% CI 23.4% to 54.3%) and a specificity of 75.2% (95% CI 56.3% to 87.8%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of cough was 1.14 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.25) and that of fever 1.52 (95% CI 1.10 to 2.10). Sore throat had a summary positive likelihood ratio of 0.814 (95% CI 0.714 to 0.929), which means that its presence increases the probability of having an infectious disease other than COVID-19. Dyspnoea (12 studies) and fatigue (8 studies) had a sensitivity of 23.3% (95% CI 16.4% to 31.9%) and 40.2% (95% CI 19.4% to 65.1%) respectively. Their specificity was 75.7% (95% CI 65.2% to 83.9%) and 73.6% (95% CI 48.4% to 89.3%). The summary positive likelihood ratio of dyspnoea was 0.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.11) and that of fatigue 1.52 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.91), which means that the presence of fatigue slightly increases the probability of having COVID-19. Anosmia alone (7 studies), ageusia alone (5 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had summary sensitivities below 50% but summary specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a summary sensitivity of 26.4% (95% CI 13.8% to 44.6%) and a specificity of 94.2% (95% CI 90.6% to 96.5%). Ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 23.2% (95% CI 10.6% to 43.3%) and a specificity of 92.6% (95% CI 83.1% to 97.0%). Anosmia or ageusia had a summary sensitivity of 39.2% (95% CI 26.5% to 53.6%) and a specificity of 92.1% (95% CI 84.5% to 96.2%). The summary positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.55 (95% CI 3.46 to 5.97) and 4.99 (95% CI 3.22 to 7.75) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The summary positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was 3.14 (95% CI 1.79 to 5.51). Twenty-four studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining olfactory symptoms. By combining symptoms with other information such as contact or travel history, age, gender, and a local recent case detection rate, some multivariable prediction scores reached a sensitivity as high as 90%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most individual symptoms included in this review have poor diagnostic accuracy. Neither absence nor presence of symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out the disease. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for the presence of COVID-19. The presence of cough also supports further testing. There is currently no evidence to support further testing with PCR in any individuals presenting only with upper respiratory symptoms such as sore throat, coryza or rhinorrhoea. Combinations of symptoms with other readily available information such as contact or travel history, or the local recent case detection rate may prove more useful and should be further investigated in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. The diagnostic accuracy of symptoms for COVID-19 is moderate to low and any testing strategy using symptoms as selection mechanism will result in both large numbers of missed cases and large numbers of people requiring testing. Which one of these is minimised, is determined by the goal of COVID-19 testing strategies, that is, controlling the epidemic by isolating every possible case versus identifying those with clinically important disease so that they can be monitored or treated to optimise their prognosis. The former will require a testing strategy that uses very few symptoms as entry criterion for testing, the latter could focus on more specific symptoms such as fever and anosmia.

New clinical prediction model for early recognition of sepsis in adult primary care patients: a prospective diagnostic cohort study of development and external validation.

BACKGROUND: Recognising patients who need immediate hospital treatment for sepsis while simultaneously limiting unnecessary referrals is challenging for GPs. AIM: To develop and validate a sepsis prediction model for adult patients in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a prospective cohort study in four out-of-hours primary care services in the Netherlands, conducted between June 2018 and March 2020. METHOD: Adult patients who were acutely ill and received home visits were included. A total of nine clinical variables were selected as candidate predictors, next to the biomarkers C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and lactate. The primary endpoint was sepsis within 72 hours of inclusion, as established by an expert panel. Multivariable logistic regression with backwards selection was used to design an optimal model with continuous clinical variables. The added value of the biomarkers was evaluated. Subsequently, a simple model using single cut-off points of continuous variables was developed and externally validated in two emergency department populations. RESULTS: A total of 357 patients were included with a median age of 80 years (interquartile range 71-86), of which 151 (42%) were diagnosed with sepsis. A model based on a simple count of one point for each of six variables (aged >65 years; temperature >38°C; systolic blood pressure ≤110 mmHg; heart rate >110/min; saturation ≤95%; and altered mental status) had good discrimination and calibration (C-statistic of 0.80 [95% confidence interval = 0.75 to 0.84]; Brier score 0.175). Biomarkers did not improve the performance of the model and were therefore not included. The model was robust during external validation. CONCLUSION: Based on this study's GP out-of-hours population, a simple model can accurately predict sepsis in acutely ill adult patients using readily available clinical parameters.

Prevalence and incidence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among primary healthcare providers in Belgium during 1 year of the COVID-19 epidemic: prospective cohort study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: National SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence data provide essential information about population exposure to the virus and help predict the future course of the epidemic. Early cohort studies have suggested declines in levels of antibodies in individuals associated with, for example, illness severity, age and comorbidities. This protocol focuses on the seroprevalence among primary healthcare providers (PHCPs) in Belgium. PHCPs manage the vast majority of (COVID-19) patients and therefore play an essential role in the efficient organisation of healthcare. Currently, evidence is lacking on (1) how many PHCPs get infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Belgium, (2) the rate at which this happens, (3) their clinical spectrum, (4) their risk factors, (5) the effectiveness of the measures to prevent infection and (6) the accuracy of the serology-based point-of-care test (POCT) in a primary care setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be set up as a prospective cohort study. General practitioners (GPs) and other PHCPs (working in a GP practice) will be recruited via professional networks and professional media outlets to register online to participate. Registered GPs and other PHCPs will be asked at each testing point (n=9) to perform a capillary blood sample antibody POCT targeting IgM and IgG against the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 and complete an online questionnaire. The primary outcomes are the prevalence and incidence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in PHCPs during a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include the longevity of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by the ethics committee of the University Hospital of Antwerp/University of Antwerp (Belgian registration number: 3002020000237). Alongside journal publications, dissemination activities include the publication of monthly reports to be shared with the participants and the general population through the publicly available website of the Belgian health authorities (Sciensano). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04779424.

Accuracy of parents' subjective assessment of paediatric fever with thermometer measured fever in a primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Fever is a common symptom of benign childhood illness but a high fever may be a sign of a serious infection. Temperature is often used by parents to check for illness in their children, and the presence of a high temperature can act as a prompt to consult a healthcare professional. It would be helpful for GPs to understand how well parental assessment of the presence of fever correlates with temperature measurement in the clinic in order to incorporate the history of the child's fever into their clinical assessment. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a cross-sectional diagnostic method comparison study. Parents were asked whether they thought their child had fever before their temperature was measured by a researcher. Fever was defined as a temperature of 38 °C and higher using either an axillary or tympanic thermometer. RESULTS: Of 399 children recruited, 119 (29.8%) were believed by their parents to be febrile at the time of questioning and 23 (6.3%) had a fever as measured by a researcher in the clinic. 23.5% of children with a parental assessment of fever were found to have a fever in the clinic. Less than 1% of children whose parents thought they did not have a fever were found to be febrile in the clinic. Having more than one child did not improve accuracy of parents assessing fever in their child. CONCLUSIONS: In the GP surgery setting, a child identified as afebrile by their parent is highly likely to be measured as such in the clinic. A child identified as febrile by their parent is less likely to be measured as febrile.

Antibiotic prescribing rate after optimal near-patient C-reactive protein testing in acutely ill children presenting to ambulatory care (ARON project): protocol for a cluster-randomized pragmatic trial.

INTRODUCTION: Children become ill quite often, mainly because of infections, most of which can be managed in the community. Many children are prescribed antibiotics which contributes to antimicrobial resistance and reinforces health-seeking behaviour. Point-of-care C reactive protein (POC CRP) testing, prescription guidance and safety-netting advice can help safely reduce antibiotic prescribing to acutely ill children in ambulatory care as well as save costs at a systems level. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ARON (Antibiotic prescribing Rate after Optimal Near-patient testing in acutely ill children in ambulatory care) trial is a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled superiority trial with a nested process evaluation and will assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of a diagnostic algorithm, which includes a standardised clinical assessment, a POC CRP test, and safety-netting advice, in acutely ill children aged 6 months to 12 years presenting to ambulatory care. The primary outcome is antibiotic prescribing at the index consultation; secondary outcomes include clinical recovery, reconsultation, referral/admission to hospital, additional testing, mortality and patient satisfaction. We aim to recruit a total sample size of 6111 patients. All outcomes will be analysed according to the intent-to-treat approach. We will use a mixed-effect logistic regression analysis to account for the clustering at practice level. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be conducted in compliance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (current version), the principles of Good Clinical Practice and in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. Ethics approval for this study was obtained on 10 November 2020 from the Ethics Committee Research of University Hospitals Leuven under reference S62005. We will ensure that the findings of the study will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders other than the scientific world including the public, healthcare providers and policy-makers. The process evaluation that is part of this trial may provide a basis for an implementation strategy. If our intervention proves to be clinically and cost-effective, it will be essential to educate physicians about introducing the diagnostic algorithm including POC CRP testing and safety-netting advice in their daily practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04470518. Protocol V.2.0 date 2 October 2020. (Pre-results).

Prospective SARS-CoV-2 cohort study among primary health care providers during the second COVID-19 wave in Flanders, Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Primary health care providers (PHCPs) are assumed to be at high risk of a COVID-19 infection, as they are exposed to patients with usually less personal protective equipment (PPE) than other frontline health care workers (HCWs). Nevertheless, current research efforts focussed on the assessment of COVID-19 seroprevalence rates in the general population or hospital HCWs. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the seroprevalence in PHCPs during the second SARS-CoV-2 wave in Flanders (Belgium) and compared it to the seroprevalence in the general population. We also assessed risk factors, availability of PPE and attitudes towards the government guidelines over time. METHODS: A prospective cohort of PHCPs (n = 698), mainly general practitioners, was asked to complete a questionnaire and self-sample capillary blood by finger-pricking at five distinct points in time (June-December 2020). We analysed the dried blood spots for IgG antibodies using a Luminex multiplex immunoassay. RESULTS: The seroprevalence of PHCPs remained stable between June and September (4.6-5.0%), increased significantly from October to December (8.1-13.4%) and was significantly higher than the seroprevalence of the general population. The majority of PHCPs were concerned about becoming infected, had adequate PPE and showed increasing confidence in government guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The marked increase in seroprevalence during the second COVID-19 wave shows that PHCPs were more at risk during the second wave compared to the first wave in Flanders. This increase was only slightly higher in PHCPs than in the general population suggesting that the occupational health measures implemented provided sufficient protection when managing patients.

Point-of-care tests for pediatric urinary tract infections in general practice: a diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of pediatrics urinary tract infections in the outpatient settings is challenging but essential to prevent hospitalization and kidney damage. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy of a selection of point-of-care tests for pediatric urinary tract infections in general practice. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study in 26 general practices in Flanders, Belgium (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03835104). Urine was sampled systematically from children between 3 months to 18 years presenting with an acute illness of maximum 10 days. Samples were analyzed at the central laboratory with a routine dipstick test, the Utriplex test, the Uriscreen test and the Rapidbac as index tests, and with urine culture showing more than 105 colony-forming units per milliliter of one pathogen as reference standard. For each test, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and predictive values with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Three-hundred urine samples were available for analysis of which 30 samples were culture positive (10%). Sensitivities and specificities were 32% (95% CI 16%-52%) and 86% (95% CI 82%-90%) for the dipstick test, 21% (95% CI 8%-40%) and 94% (95% CI 91%-97%) for the Utriplex test, 40% (95% CI 16%-68%) and 83% (95% CI 75%-88%) for the Rapidbac test, and 67% (95% CI 38%-88%) with 69% (95% CI 60%-76%) for the Uriscreen test. CONCLUSION: All 4 point-of-care tests were suboptimal for use in the broad range of children presenting with acute illnesses to general practice. General practitioners need novel methods for obtaining reliable urine samples during the time of the consultation, especially for children not yet toilet-trained.