Objective To collate all available evidence on the diagnostic value of laboratory tests for the diagnosis of serious infections in febrile children in ambulatory settings. Design Systematic review. Data sources Electronic databases, reference tracking, and consultation with experts. Study selection Studies were selected on six criteria: design (studies of diagnostic accuracy or deriving prediction rules), participants (otherwise healthy children and adolescents aged 1 month to 18 years), setting (first contact ambulatory care), outcome (serious infection), features assessed (in first contact care), and data reported (sufficient to construct a 2×2 table). Data extraction Quality assessment was based on the quality assessment tool of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS) criteria. Meta-analyses were done using the bivariate random effects method and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves for studies with multiple thresholds. Data synthesis None of the 14 studies identified were of high methodological quality and all were carried out in an emergency department or paediatric assessment unit. The prevalence of serious infections ranged from 4.5% to 29.3%. Tests were carried out for C reactive protein (five studies), procalcitonin (three), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (one), interleukins (two), white blood cell count (seven), absolute neutrophil count (two), band count (three), and left shift (one). The tests providing most diagnostic value were C reactive protein and procalcitonin. Bivariate random effects meta-analysis (five studies, 1379 children) for C reactive protein yielded a pooled positive likelihood ratio of 3.15 (95% confidence interval 2.67 to 3.71) and a pooled negative likelihood ratio of 0.33 (0.22 to 0.49). To rule in serious infection, cut-off levels of 2 ng/mL for procalcitonin (two studies, positive likelihood ratio 13.7, 7.4 to 25.3 and 3.6, 1.4 to 8.9) and 80 mg/L for C reactive protein (one study, positive likelihood ratio 8.4, 5.1 to 14.1) are recommended; lower cut-off values of 0.5 ng/mL for procalcitonin or 20 mg/L for C reactive protein are necessary to rule out serious infection. White blood cell indicators are less valuable than inflammatory markers for ruling in serious infection (positive likelihood ratio 0.87-2.43), and have no value for ruling out serious infection (negative likelihood ratio 0.61-1.14). The best performing clinical decision rule (recently validated in an independent dataset) combines testing for C reactive protein, procalcitonin, and urinalysis and has a positive likelihood ratio of 4.92 (3.26 to 7.43) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.07 (0.02 to 0.27). Conclusion Measuring inflammatory markers in an emergency department setting can be diagnostically useful, but clinicians should apply different cut-off values depending on whether they are trying to rule in or rule out serious infection. Measuring white blood cell count is less useful for ruling in serious infection and not useful for ruling out serious infection. More rigorous studies are needed, including studies in primary care, to assess the value of laboratory tests alongside clinical diagnostic measurements, including vital signs.

Background Although the vast majority of children with acute infections are managed at home, this is one of the most common problems encountered in children attending emergency departments (EDs) and primary care. Distinguishing children with serious infection from those with minor or self-limiting infection is difficult. This can result in misdiagnosis of children with serious infections, which results in a poorer health outcome, or a tendency to refer or admit children as a precaution; thus, inappropriately utilising secondary-care resources. Objectives We systematically identified clinical features and laboratory tests which identify serious infection in children attending the ED and primary care. We also identified clinical prediction rules and validated those using existing data sets. Data sources We searched MEDLINE, Medion, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects in October 2008, with an update in June 2009, using search terms that included terms related to five components: serious infections, children, clinical history and examination, laboratory tests and ambulatory care settings. We also searched references of included studies, clinical content experts, and relevant National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines to identify relevant studies. There were no language restrictions. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were based in ambulatory settings in economically developed countries. Review methods Literature searching, selection and data extraction were carried out by two reviewers. We assessed quality using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS) instrument, and used spectrum bias and validity of the reference standard as exclusion criteria. We calculated the positive likelihood ratio (LR+) and negative likelihood ratio (LR–) of each feature along with the pre- and post-test probabilities of the outcome. Meta-analysis was performed using the bivariate method when appropriate. We externally validated clinical prediction rules identified from the systematic review using existing data from children attending ED or primary care. Results We identified 1939 articles, of which 35 were selected for inclusion in the review. There was only a single study from primary care; all others were performed in the ED. The quality of the included studies was modest. We also identified seven data sets (11,045 children) to use for external validation. The most useful clinical features for ruling in serious infection was parental or clinician overall concern that the illness was different from previous illnesses or that something was wrong. In low- or intermediate-prevalence settings, the presence of fever had some diagnostic value. Additional red flag features included cyanosis, poor peripheral circulation, rapid breathing, crackles on auscultation, diminished breath sounds, meningeal irritation, petechial rash, decreased consciousness and seizures. Procalcitonin (LR+ 1.75–2.96, LR– 0.08–0.35) and C-reactive protein (LR+ 2.53–3.79, LR– 0.25–0.61) were superior to white cell counts. The best performing clinical prediction rule was a five-stage decision tree rule, consisting of the physician’s gut feeling, dyspnoea, temperature ≥ 40 °C, diarrhoea and age. It was able to decrease the likelihood of serious infections substantially, but on validation it provided good ruling out value only in low-to-intermediate-prevalence settings (LR– 0.11–0.28). We also identified and validated the Yale Observation Scale and prediction rules for pneumonia, meningitis and gastroenteritis. Limitations Only a single study was identified from primary-care settings, therefore results may lack generalisability. Conclusions Several clinical features are useful to increase or decrease the probability that a child has a serious infection. None is sufficient on its own to substantially raise or lower the risk of serious infection. Some are highly specific (‘red flags’), so when present should prompt a more thorough or repeated assessment. C-reactive protein and procalcitonin demonstrate similar diagnostic characteristics and are both superior to white cell counts. However, even in children with a serious infection, red flags will occur infrequently, and their absence does not lower the risk. The diagnostic gap is currently filled by using clinical ‘gut feeling’ and diagnostic safety-netting, which are still not well defined. Although two prediction rules for serious infection and one for meningitis provided some diagnostic value, we do not recommend widespread implementation at this time. Future research is needed to identify predictors of serious infection in children in primary-care settings, to validate prediction rules more widely, and determine the added fvalue of blood tests in primar-care settings. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Objective To investigate the basis and added value of clinicians’ “gut feeling” that infections in children are more serious than suggested by clinical assessment. Design Observational study. Setting Primary care setting, Flanders, Belgium. Participants Consecutive series of 3890 children and young people aged 0-16 years presenting in primary care. Main outcome measures Presenting features, clinical assessment, doctors’ intuitive response at first contact with children in primary care, and any subsequent diagnosis of serious infection determined from hospital records. Results Of the 3369 children and young people assessed clinically as having a non-severe illness, six (0.2%) were subsequently admitted to hospital with a serious infection. Intuition that something was wrong despite the clinical assessment of non-severe illness substantially increased the risk of serious illness (likelihood ratio 25.5, 95% confidence interval 7.9 to 82.0) and acting on this gut feeling had the potential to prevent two of the six cases being missed (33%, 95% confidence interval 4.0% to 100%) at a cost of 44 false alarms (1.3%, 95% confidence interval 0.95% to 1.75%). The clinical features most strongly associated with gut feeling were the children’s overall response (drowsiness, no laughing), abnormal breathing, weight loss, and convulsions. The strongest contextual factor was the parents’ concern that the illness was different from their previous experience (odds ratio 36.3, 95% confidence interval 12.3 to 107). Conclusions A gut feeling about the seriousness of illness in children is an instinctive response by clinicians to the concerns of the parents and the appearance of the children. It should trigger action such as seeking a second opinion or further investigations. The observed association between intuition and clinical markers of serious infection means that by reflecting on the genesis of their gut feeling, clinicians should be able to hone their clinical skills.

Objective Despite the growing number of point-of-care (POC) tests available, little research has assessed primary care clinician need for such tests. We therefore aimed to determine which POC tests they actually use or would like to use (if not currently available in their practice). Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting Primary care in Australia, Belgium (Flanders region only), the Netherlands, the UK and the USA. Participants Primary care doctors (general practitioners, family physicians). Main measures We asked respondents to (1) identify conditions for which a POC test could help inform diagnosis, (2) from a list of tests provided: evaluate which POC tests they currently use (and how frequently) and (3) determine which tests (from that same list) they would like to use in the future (and how frequently). Results 2770 primary care clinicians across five countries responded. Respondents in all countries wanted POC tests to help them diagnose acute conditions (infections, acute cardiac disease, pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis), and some chronic conditions (diabetes, anaemia). Based on the list of POC tests provided, the most common tests currently used were: urine pregnancy, urine leucocytes or nitrite and blood glucose. The most commonly reported tests respondents expressed a wish to use in the future were: D-dimer, troponin and chlamydia. The UK and the USA reported a higher actual and desired use for POC tests than Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands. Our limited data suggest (but do not confirm) representativeness. Conclusions Primary care clinicians in all five countries expressed a desire for POC tests to help them diagnose a range of acute and chronic conditions. Rates of current reported use and desired future use were generally high for a small selection of POC tests, but varied across countries. Future research is warranted to explore how specific POC tests might improve primary care.