Early clinical predictors of severe acute respiratory syndrome in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association of diagnostic predictors available in the emergency department (ED) with the outcome diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study describes all patients from the Amoy Garden complex who presented to an ED SARS screening clinic during a 2-month outbreak. Clinical and diagnostic predictors were recorded, along with ED diagnoses. Final diagnoses were established independently based on diagnostic tests performed after the ED visit. Associations of key predictors with the final diagnosis of SARS were described. RESULTS: Of 821 patients, 205 had confirmed SARS, 35 undetermined SARS and 581 non-SARS. Multivariable logistic regression showed that the strongest predictors of SARS were abnormal chest x-ray (odds ratio [OR] = 17.4), subjective fever (OR = 9.7), temperature degrees >38 degrees C (OR = 6.4), myalgias (OR = 5.5), chills and rigors (OR = 4.0) and contact exposure (OR = 2.6). In a subset of 176 patients who had a complete blood cell count performed, the strongest predictors were temperature >or=38 degrees C (OR = 15.5), lymphocyte count <1000 (OR = 9.3) and abnormal chest x-ray (OR = 5.7). Diarrhea was a powerful negative predictor (OR = 0.03) of SARS. CONCLUSIONS: Two components of the World Health Organization case definition - fever and contact exposure - are helpful for ED decision-making, but respiratory symptoms do not discriminate well between SARS and non-SARS. Emergency physicians should consider the presence of diarrhea, chest x-ray findings, the absolute lymphocyte count and the platelet count as significant modifiers of disease likelihood. Prospective validation of these findings in other clinical settings is desirable.

Accuracy of clinical diagnosis versus the World Health Organization case definition in the Amoy Garden SARS cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of emergency department (ED) physicians with the World Health Organization (WHO) case definition in a large community-based SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) cohort. METHODS: This was a cohort study of all patients from Hong Kong's Amoy Garden complex who presented to an ED SARS screening clinic during a 2-month outbreak. Clinical findings and WHO case definition criteria were recorded, along with ED diagnoses. Final diagnoses were established independently based on relevant diagnostic tests performed after the ED visit. Emergency physician diagnostic accuracy was compared with that of the WHO SARS case definition. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated using standard formulae. RESULTS: During the study period, 818 patients presented with SARS-like symptoms, including 205 confirmed SARS, 35 undetermined SARS and 578 non-SARS. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 91%, 96% and 94% for ED clinical diagnosis, versus 42%, 86% and 75% for the WHO case definition. Positive likelihood ratios (LR+) were 21.1 for physician judgement and 3.1 for the WHO criteria. Negative likelihood ratios (LR-) were 0.10 for physician judgement and 0.67 for the WHO criteria, indicating that clinician judgement was a much more powerful predictor than the WHO criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Physician clinical judgement was more accurate than the WHO case definition. Reliance on the WHO case definition as a SARS screening tool may lead to an unacceptable rate of misdiagnosis. The SARS case definition must be revised if it is to be used as a screening tool in emergency departments and primary care settings.