RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of McIsaac and Centor score in patients presenting to secondary care with Pharyngitis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.02.22.23286307
DO 10.1101/2023.02.22.23286307
A1 Kanagasabai, Atchchuthan
A1 Evans, Callum
A1 Jones, Hayley E
A1 Hay, Alastair D
A1 Dawson, Sarah
A1 Savović, Jelena
A1 Elwenspoek, Martha M C
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/26/2023.02.22.23286307.abstract
AB Background Centor and modified Centor (McIsaac) scores are clinical prediction rules used to diagnose group A streptococcus infection in patients with pharyngitis. They aim to identify the patients most likely to benefit from antibiotic treatment and reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing.Objectives To systematically review the literature on the diagnostic accuracy of McIsaac and Centor, and produce pooled estimates of accuracy at each score threshold, in patients presenting with acute pharyngitis to secondary care.Data sources MEDLINE, Embase and Web of science were searched from inception to June 2021.Eligibility criteria Studies that included patients who presented with acute pharyngitis to hospital emergency departments and outpatient clinics, reported McIsaac or Centor scores, and used throat cultures and/or rapid antigen detection tests as the reference standard.Review methods The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021267413). Study selection was performed by two reviewers independently and risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Sensitivities and specificities of McIsaac and Centor scores were pooled at each threshold using bivariate random effects meta-analysis.Results The McIsaac score had higher estimated sensitivity and lower specificity relative to Centor scores at equivalent thresholds, but with wide and overlapping confidence regions. Using either score as a triage to rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) to decide antibiotic treatment would reduce antibiotic prescription to non-GAS pharyngitis patients relative to RADT test for everyone, but also reduce antibiotic prescription to GAS patients.Conclusion Our findings suggest that high thresholds of either score excludes a proportion of true positive patients from potentially beneficial treatment. The use of a low threshold before a RADT test would reduce antibiotic prescription relative to prescribing based on score only but the economics and clinical effectiveness of this combination strategy needs assessment. We recommend continued use of existing antibiotic prescribing guidelines and patient safety netting.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research was carried out as part of the undergraduate research project by AK and CE supervised by ME and JS without any dedicated funding. MEs and JSs time was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West). ADH is funded by an NIHR Senior Investigator Award (NIHR200151). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. HEJ was supported by an MRC-NIHR New Investigator Research Grant (MR/T044594/1).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors