Identification of radiological alveolar pneumonia in children with high rates of hospitalized respiratory infections: Comparison of WHO‐defined and pediatric pulmonologist diagnosis in the clinical context

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: A reliable standardized diagnosis of pneumonia in children has long been difficult to achieve. Clinical and radiological criteria have been developed by the World Health Organization (WHO), however, their generalizability to different populations is uncertain. We evaluated WHO defined chest radiograph (CXRs) confirmed alveolar pneumonia in the clinical context in Central Australian Aboriginal children, a high risk population, hospitalized with acute lower respiratory illness (ALRI). METHODS: CXRs in children (aged 1-60 months) hospitalized and treated with intravenous antibiotics for ALRI and enrolled in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Vitamin A/Zinc supplementation were matched with data collected during a population-based study of WHO-defined primary endpoint pneumonia (WHO-EPC). These CXRs were reread by a pediatric pulmonologist (PP) and classified as pneumonia-PP when alveolar changes were present. Sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) for clinical presentations were compared between WHO-EPC and pneumonia-PP. RESULTS: Of the 147 episodes of hospitalized ALRI, WHO-EPC was significantly less commonly diagnosed in 40 (27.2%) compared to pneumonia-PP (difference 20.4%, 95% CI 9.6-31.2, P < 0.001). Clinical signs on admission were poor predictors for both pneumonia-PP and WHO-EPC; the sensitivities of clinical signs ranged from a high of 45% for tachypnea to 5% for fever + tachypnea + chest-indrawing. The PPV range was 40-20%, respectively. Higher PPVs were observed against the pediatric pulmonologist's diagnosis compared to WHO-EPC. CONCLUSIONS: WHO-EPC underestimates alveolar consolidation in a clinical context. Its use in clinical practice or in research designed to inform clinical management in this population should be avoided.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.