Clinical Scores for Dyspnoea Severity in Children: A Prospective Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: In acute dyspnoeic children, assessment of dyspnoea severity and treatment response is frequently based on clinical dyspnoea scores. Our study aim was to validate five commonly used paediatric dyspnoea scores. METHODS: Fifty children aged 0-8 years with acute dyspnoea were clinically assessed before and after bronchodilator treatment, a subset of 27 children were videotaped and assessed twice by nine observers. The observers scored clinical signs necessary to calculate the Asthma Score (AS), Asthma Severity Score (ASS), Clinical Asthma Evaluation Score 2 (CAES-2), Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) and respiratory rate, accessory muscle use, decreased breath sounds (RAD). RESULTS: A total of 1120 observations were used to assess fourteen measurement properties within domains of validity, reliability and utility. All five dyspnoea scores showed overall poor results, scoring insufficiently on more than half of the quality criteria for measurement properties. The AS and PRAM were the most valid with good values on six and moderate values on three properties. Poor results were mainly due to insufficient measurement properties in the validity and reliability domains whereas utility properties were moderate to good in all scores. CONCLUSION: This study shows that commonly used dyspnoea scores show insufficient validity and reliability to allow for clinical use without caution.

Large observer variation of clinical assessment of dyspnoeic wheezing children.

BACKGROUND: In children with acute dyspnoea, the assessment of severity of dyspnoea and response to treatment is often performed by different professionals, implying that knowledge of the interobserver variation of this clinical assessment is important. OBJECTIVE: To determine intraobserver and interobserver variation in clinical assessment of children with dyspnoea. METHODS: From September 2009 to September 2010, we recorded a convenience sample of 27 acutely wheezing children (aged 3 months-7 years) in the emergency department of a general teaching hospital in the Netherlands, on video before and after treatment with inhaled bronchodilators. These video recordings were independently assessed by nine observers scoring wheeze, prolonged expiratory phase, retractions, nasal flaring and a general assessment of dyspnoea on a Likert scale (0-10). Assessment was repeated after 2 weeks to evaluate intraobserver variation. RESULTS: We analysed 972 observations. Intraobserver reliability was the highest for supraclavicular retractions (κ 0.84) and moderate-to-substantial for other items (κ 0.49-0.65). Interobserver reliability was considerably worse, with κ<0.46 for all items. The smallest detectable change of the dyspnoea score (>3 points) was larger than the minimal important change (<1 point), meaning that in 69% of observations a clinically important change after treatment cannot be distinguished from measurement error. CONCLUSIONS: Intraobserver variation is modest, and interobserver variation is large for most clinical findings in children with dyspnoea. The measurement error induced by this variation is too large to distinguish potentially clinically relevant changes in dyspnoea after treatment in two-thirds of observations. The poor interobserver reliability of clinical dyspnoea assessment in children limits its usefulness in clinical practice and research, and highlights the need to use more objective measurements in these patients.

Systematic review: insufficient validation of clinical scores for the assessment of acute dyspnoea in wheezing children.

BACKGROUND: A reliable, valid, and easy-to-use assessment of the degree of wheeze-associated dyspnoea is important to provide individualised treatment for children with acute asthma, wheeze or bronchiolitis. OBJECTIVE: To assess validity, reliability, and utility of all available paediatric dyspnoea scores. METHODS: Systematic review. We searched Pubmed, Cochrane library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Embase and Cinahl for eligible studies. We included studies describing the development or use of a score, assessing two or more clinical symptoms and signs, for the assessment of severity of dyspnoea in an acute episode of acute asthma, wheeze or bronchiolitis in children aged 0-18 years. We assessed validity, reliability and utility of the retrieved dyspnoea scores using 15 quality criteria. RESULTS: We selected 60 articles describing 36 dyspnoea scores. Fourteen scores were judged unsuitable for clinical use, because of insufficient face validity, use of items unsuitable for children, difficult scoring system or because complex auscultative skills are needed, leaving 22 possibly useful scores. The median number of quality criteria that could be assessed was 7 (range 6-11). The median number of positively rated quality criteria was 3 (range 1-5). Although most scores were easy to use, important deficits were noted in all scores across the three methodological quality domains, in particular relating to reliability and responsiveness. CONCLUSION: None of the many dyspnoea scores has been sufficiently validated to allow for clinically meaningful use in children with acute dyspnoea or wheeze. Proper validation of existing scores is warranted to allow paediatric professionals to make a well balanced decision on the use of the dyspnoea score most suitable for their specific purpose.

Co-infections in children hospitalised for bronchiolitis: role of roomsharing.

BACKGROUND: Bronchiolitis is a major cause for hospitalisation in young children during the winter season, with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) as the main causative virus. Apart from standard hygiene measures, cohorting of RSV-infected patients separately from RSV-negative patients is frequently applied to prevent cross-infection, although evidence to support this practice is lacking. The objective is to evaluate the risk of room sharing between RSV-positive and RSV-negative patients. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational cohort study in children < 2 years hospitalised with acute bronchiolitis. During the first day of admission, patients shared one room, pending results of virological diagnosis (PCR). When diagnostic results were available, RSV-positive and RSV-negative patients were separated. Standard hygienic measures (gowns, gloves, masks, hand washing) were used in all patients. RESULTS: We included 48 patients (83% RSV-positive). Co-infection was found in nine patients at admission, and two during hospitalisation (23%). The two patients with acquired co-infection had been nursed in a single room during the entire admission. None of 37 patients sharing a room with other bronchiolitis patients (20 with patients with a different virus) were co-infected during admission. Disease severity in co-infection was not worse than in mono-infection. CONCLUSION: One in five patients with bronchiolitis was co-infected, but co-infection acquired during admission was rare and was not associated with more severe disease. Room sharing between RSV-positive and RSV-negative patients (on the first day of admission) did not influence the risk of co-infection, suggesting that cohorting of RSV-infected patients separate from non-RSV-infected patients may not be indicated.