1,720,973 research outputs found
Acute cough due to acute bronchitis in immunocompetent adult outpatients: CHEST Expert Panel Report
No full textBackground: Evidence for the diagnosis and management of cough due to acute bronchitis in immunocompetent adult outpatients was reviewed as an update to the 2006 “Chronic Cough Due to Acute Bronchitis: American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.” Methods: Acute bronchitis was defined as an acute lower respiratory tract infection manifested predominantly by cough with or without sputum production, lasting no more than 3 weeks with no clinical or any recent radiographic evidence to suggest an alternative explanation. Two clinical population, intervention, comparison, outcome questions were addressed by systematic review in July 2017: (1) the role of investigations beyond the clinical assessment of patients presenting with suspected acute bronchitis, and (2) the efficacy and safety of prescribing medication for cough in acute bronchitis. An updated search was undertaken in May 2018. Results: No eligible studies relevant to the first question were identified. For the second question, only one relevant study met eligibility criteria. This study found no difference in number of days with cough between patients treated with an antibiotic or an oral nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agent compared with placebo. Clinical suggestions and research recommendations were made based on the consensus opinion of the CHEST Expert Cough Panel. Conclusions: The panelists suggested that no routine investigations be ordered and no routine medications be prescribed in immunocompetent adult outpatients first presenting with cough due to suspected acute bronchitis, until such investigations and treatments have been shown to be safe and effective at making cough less severe or resolve sooner. If the cough due to suspected acute bronchitis persists or worsens, a reassessment and consideration of targeted investigations should be considered.</p
Clinically diagnosing Pertussis-associated cough in adults and children: chest guideline and expert panel report
Full text linkBackground
The decision to treat a suspected case of pertussis with antibiotics is usually based on a clinical diagnosis rather than waiting for laboratory confirmation. The current guideline focuses on making the clinical diagnosis of pertussis-associated cough in adults and children.
Methods
The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) methodologic guidelines and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework were used. The Expert Cough Panel based their recommendations on findings from a systematic review that was recently published on the topic; final grading was reached by consensus according to Delphi methodology. The systematic review was carried out to answer the Key Clinical Question: In patients presenting with cough, how can we most accurately diagnose from clinical features alone those who have pertussis-associated cough as opposed to other causes of cough?
Results
In adults, after pre-specified meta-analysis exclusions, pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated for only 4 clinical features: paroxysmal cough, post-tussive vomiting, inspiratory whooping, and absence of fever. Both paroxysmal cough and absence of fever had high sensitivity (93.2% [95% CI, 83.2-97.4] and 81.8% [95% CI, 72.2-88.7], respectively) and low specificity (20.6% [95% CI, 14.7-28.1] and 18.8% [95% CI, 8.1-37.9]). Inspiratory whooping and posttussive vomiting had a low sensitivity (32.5% [95% CI, 24.5-41.6] and 29.8% [95% CI, 18.0-45.2]) but high specificity (77.7% [95% CI, 73.1-81.7] and 79.5% [95% CI, 69.4-86.9]). In children, after pre-specified meta-analysis exclusions, pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated for only 1 clinical feature in children (0-18 years): posttussive vomiting. Posttussive vomiting in children was only moderately sensitive (60.0% [95% CI, 40.3-77.0]) and specific (66.0% [95% CI, 52.5-77.3]).
Conclusions
In adults with acute (and#60; 3 weeks) or subacute (3-8 weeks) cough, the presence of whooping or posttussive vomiting should rule in a possible diagnosis of pertussis, whereas the lack of a paroxysmal cough or the presence of fever should rule it out. In children with acute (and#60; 4 weeks) cough, posttussive vomiting is suggestive of pertussis but is much less helpful as a clinical diagnostic test. Guideline suggestions are made based upon these findings and conclusions
CHEST Expert Cough Panel. Adult Outpatients With Acute Cough Due to Suspected Pneumonia or Influenza: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report
No full textBackgroundPatients commonly present to primary care services with upper and lower respiratory tract infections, and guidelines to help physicians investigate and treat acute cough due to suspected pneumonia and influenza are needed.MethodsA systematic search was carried out with eight patient, intervention, comparison, outcome questions related to acute cough due to suspected pneumonia or influenza.ResultsThere was a lack of randomized controlled trials in the setting of outpatients presenting with acute cough due to suspected pneumonia or influenza who were not hospitalized. Both clinical suggestions and research recommendations were made on the evidence available and CHEST Expert Cough Panel advice.ConclusionsFor outpatient adults with acute cough due to suspected pneumonia, we suggest the following clinical symptoms and signs are suggestive of pneumonia: cough; dyspnea; pleural pain; sweating, fevers, or shivers; aches and pains; temperature ≥ 38°C; tachypnea; and new and localizing chest examination signs. Those suspected of having pneumonia should undergo chest radiography to improve diagnostic accuracy. Although the measurement of C-reactive protein levels strengthens both the diagnosis and exclusion of pneumonia, there was no added benefit of measuring procalcitonin levels in this setting. We suggest that there is no need for routine microbiological testing. We suggest the use of empiric antibiotics according to local and national guidelines when pneumonia is suspected in settings in which imaging cannot be performed. Where there is no clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia, we do not suggest the routine use of antibiotics. There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against specific nonantibiotic, symptomatic therapies. Finally, for outpatient adults with acute cough and suspected influenza, we suggest that initiating antiviral treatment (according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice) within 48 hours of symptoms could be associated with decreased antibiotic use and hospitalization and improved outcomes
CHEST Expert Cough Panel. Adult Outpatients With Acute Cough Due to Suspected Pneumonia or Influenza: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report
No full textBackgroundPatients commonly present to primary care services with upper and lower respiratory tract infections, and guidelines to help physicians investigate and treat acute cough due to suspected pneumonia and influenza are needed.MethodsA systematic search was carried out with eight patient, intervention, comparison, outcome questions related to acute cough due to suspected pneumonia or influenza.ResultsThere was a lack of randomized controlled trials in the setting of outpatients presenting with acute cough due to suspected pneumonia or influenza who were not hospitalized. Both clinical suggestions and research recommendations were made on the evidence available and CHEST Expert Cough Panel advice.ConclusionsFor outpatient adults with acute cough due to suspected pneumonia, we suggest the following clinical symptoms and signs are suggestive of pneumonia: cough; dyspnea; pleural pain; sweating, fevers, or shivers; aches and pains; temperature ≥ 38°C; tachypnea; and new and localizing chest examination signs. Those suspected of having pneumonia should undergo chest radiography to improve diagnostic accuracy. Although the measurement of C-reactive protein levels strengthens both the diagnosis and exclusion of pneumonia, there was no added benefit of measuring procalcitonin levels in this setting. We suggest that there is no need for routine microbiological testing. We suggest the use of empiric antibiotics according to local and national guidelines when pneumonia is suspected in settings in which imaging cannot be performed. Where there is no clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia, we do not suggest the routine use of antibiotics. There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against specific nonantibiotic, symptomatic therapies. Finally, for outpatient adults with acute cough and suspected influenza, we suggest that initiating antiviral treatment (according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advice) within 48 hours of symptoms could be associated with decreased antibiotic use and hospitalization and improved outcomes
Assessment of intervention fidelity and recommendations for researchers conducting studies on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic cough in the adult: CHEST guideline and expert panel report
No full textBACKGROUND: Successful management of chronic cough has varied in the primary research studies in the reported literature. One of the potential reasons relates to a lack of intervention fidelity to the core elements of the diagnostic and/or therapeutic interventions that were meant to be used by the investigators
Management of Children With Chronic Wet Cough and Protracted Bacterial Bronchitis CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report
Full text linkBACKGROUND: Wet or productive cough is common in children with chronic cough. We formulated recommendations based on systematic reviews related to the management of chronic wet cough in children (aged METHODS: We used the CHEST expert cough panel\u27s protocol for systematic reviews and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) methodologic guidelines and GRADE framework (the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Data from the systematic reviews in conjunction with patients\u27 values and preferences and the clinical context were used to form recommendations. Delphi methodology was used to obtain consensus for the recommendations/suggestions made. RESULTS: Combining data from the systematic reviews, we found high-quality evidence in children aged 4 weeks\u27 duration) wet/productive cough that using appropriate antibiotics improves cough resolution, and further investigations (eg, flexible bronchoscopy, chest CT scans, immunity tests) should be undertaken when specific cough pointers (eg, digital clubbing) are present. When the wet cough does not improve following 4 weeks of antibiotic treatment, there is moderate-quality evidence that further investigations should be considered to look for an underlying disease. New recommendations include the recognition of the clinical diagnostic entity of protracted bacterial bronchitis. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the 2006 Cough Guidelines, there is now high-quality evidence for some, but not all, aspects of the management of chronic wet cough in specialist settings. However, further studies (particularly in primary health) are required
Cough in the Athlete CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report
No full textBACKGROUND: Cough is a common symptom experienced by athletes, particularly after exercise. We performed a systematic review to assess the following in this population: (1) the main causes of acute and recurrent cough, either exercise-induced or not, (2) how cough is assessed, and (3) how cough is treated in this population. From the systematic review, suggestions for management were developed
Use of Management Pathways or Algorithms in Children With Chronic Cough CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report
Full text linkBACKGROUND: Using management algorithms or pathways potentially improves clinical outcomes. We undertook systematic reviews to examine various aspects in the generic approach (use of cough algorithms and tests) to the management of chronic cough in children (aged ≤ 14 years) based on key questions (KQs) using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome format.
METHODS: We used the CHEST Expert Cough Panel\u27s protocol for the systematic reviews and the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) methodological guidelines and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Data from the systematic reviews in conjunction with patients\u27 values and preferences and the clinical context were used to form recommendations. Delphi methodology was used to obtain the final grading. RESULTS: Combining data from systematic reviews addressing five KQs, we found high-quality evidence that a systematic approach to the management of chronic cough improves clinical outcomes. Although there was evidence from several pathways, the highest evidence was from the use of the CHEST approach. However, there was no or little evidence to address some of the KQs posed. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the 2006 Cough Guidelines, there is now high-quality evidence that in children aged 4 weeks\u27 duration), the use of cough management protocols (or algorithms) improves clinical outcomes, and cough management or testing algorithms should differ depending on the associated characteristics of the cough and clinical history. A chest radiograph and, when age appropriate, spirometry (pre-and post-beta(2) agonist) should be undertaken. Other tests should not be routinely performed and undertaken in accordance with the clinical setting and the child\u27s clinical symptoms and signs (eg, tests for tuberculosis when the child has been exposed)
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
