A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Development and Validation of the COMPLES Score for Differentiating Between Tuberculous Effusions with Low Pleural pH or Glucose and Complicated Parapneumonic Effusions. | LitMetric

Background: The frequency of "complicated" pleural effusions (CPE) (i.e., pleural fluid pH ≤ 7.2 and/or glucose ≤60 mg/dL) of tuberculous origin (CTPE) is not well reported. This study aims to quantify their prevalence, and develop a score to differentiate CTPE from complicated parapneumonic effusions (CPPE).

Methods: Retrospective analysis of databases from three Spanish hospitals which included patients with CTPE and CPPE. Forty percent of the study population served to generate a scoring system (COMPLES, COMplicated PLeural Effusion Score) that was further validated in the remaining 60 %.

Results: During the study period (1992-2015) 549 patients were diagnosed with tuberculous effusions and 434 parapneumonic effusions, of whom 25 and 64 %, respectively, had CPE. COMPLES was based on the combination of pleural fluid adenosine deaminase (ADA), the percentage of mononuclear cells (MNC %), pH, and age. The cutoff values and assigned scores were: ADA (<46 IU/L [0 points], 46-100 IU/L [4 points], ≥100 IU/L [6 points]), MNC % (<10 % [0 points], 10-50 [3 points], >50 [8 points]), pH (<7.07 [0 points], 7.07-7.20 [3 points], >7.20 [5 points]), and age (≥30 [0 points], <30 years [3 points]). A sum of 12 or more points had 97 % sensitivity, 92 % specificity, likelihood ratio positive 12.3, likelihood ratio negative 0.03, and area under the curve of 0.947 for identifying CTPE versus CPPE in the validation set.

Conclusions: CPE is not an unusual presentation of tuberculosis. A simple new scoring system provides a reliable tool for differentiating between CTPE and CPPE.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00408-016-9923-yDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

parapneumonic effusions
12
tuberculous effusions
8
complicated parapneumonic
8
pleural fluid
8
effusions
6
pleural
5
development validation
4
validation comples
4
comples score
4
score differentiating
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!