Search

Introduction: Asthma is a common childhood respiratory disorder characterized by wheeze, cough and respiratory distress responsive to bronchodilator therapy. Asthma severity can be determined by subjective, manual scoring systems such as the Pulmonary Score (PS). These systems require significant medical training and expertise to rate clinical findings such as wheeze characteristics, and work of breathing. In this study, we report the development of an objective method of assessing acute asthma severity based on the automated analysis of cough sounds. Methods: We collected a cough sound dataset from 224 children; 103 without acute asthma and 121 with acute asthma. Using this database coupled with clinical diagnoses and PS determined by a clinical panel, we developed a machine classifier algorithm to characterize the severity of airway constriction. The performance of our algorithm was then evaluated against the PS from a separate set of patients, independent of the training set. Results: The cough-only model discriminated no/mild disease (PS 0–1) from severe disease (PS 5,6) but required a modified respiratory rate calculation to separate very severe disease (PS > 6). Asymptomatic children (PS 0) were separated from moderate asthma (PS 2–4) by the cough-only model without the need for clinical inputs. Conclusions: The PS provides information in managing childhood asthma but is not readily usable by non-medical personnel. Our method offers an objective measurement of asthma severity which does not rely on clinician-dependent inputs. It holds potential for use in clinical settings including improving the performance of existing asthma-rating scales and in community-management programs. AM accessory muscle BI breathing index CI confidence interval FEV1 forced expiratory volume in one second LR logistic regression PEFR peak expiratory flow rate PS pulmonary score RR respiratory rate SD standard deviation SE standard error WA Western Australia [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diagnostic errors are a global health priority and a common cause of preventable harm. There is limited data available for the prevalence of misdiagnosis in pediatric acute-care settings. Respiratory illnesses, which are particularly challenging to diagnose, are the most frequent reason for presentation to pediatric emergency departments. Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of emergency department clinicians in diagnosing acute childhood respiratory diseases, as compared with expert panel consensus (reference standard). Methods: Prospective, multicenter, single-blinded, diagnostic accuracy study in two well-resourced pediatric emergency departments in a large Australian city. Between September 2016 and August 2018, a convenience sample of children aged 29 days to 12 years who presented with respiratory symptoms was enrolled. The emergency department discharge diagnoses were reported by clinicians based upon standard clinical diagnostic definitions. These diagnoses were compared against consensus diagnoses given by an expert panel of pediatric specialists using standardized disease definitions after they reviewed all medical records. Results: For 620 participants, the sensitivity and specificity (%, [95% CI]) of the emergency department compared with the expert panel diagnoses were generally poor: isolated upper respiratory tract disease (64.9 [54.6, 74.4], 91.0 [88.2, 93.3]), croup (76.8 [66.2, 85.4], 97.9 [96.2, 98.9]), lower respiratory tract disease (86.6 [83.1, 89.6], 92.9 [87.6, 96.4]), bronchiolitis (66.9 [58.6, 74.5], 94.3 [80.8, 99.3]), asthma/reactive airway disease (91.0 [85.8, 94.8], 93.0 [90.1, 95.3]), clinical pneumonia (63·9 [50.6, 75·8], 95·0 [92·8, 96·7]), focal (consolidative) pneumonia (54·8 [38·7, 70·2], 86.2 [79.3, 91.5]). Only 59% of chest x-rays with consolidation were correctly identified. Between 6.9 and 14.5% of children were inappropriately prescribed based on their eventual diagnosis. Conclusion: In well-resourced emergency departments, we have identified a previously unrecognized high diagnostic error rate for acute childhood respiratory disorders, particularly in pneumonia and bronchiolitis. These errors lead to the potential of avoidable harm and the administration of inappropriate treatment., Competing Interests: This study uses some data collected during the conduct of a larger study (The “Breathe Easy” study) to develop novel diagnostics for respiratory disease. Breathe Easy was supported in part by ResApp Health, a publically listed Australian company and funds were used for research assistant and research manager salaries. ResApp had no role in this current study. PP and UA are members of ResApp's scientific advisory committee. UA, JC, and PP own shares in ResApp. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Porter, Brisbane, Tan, Bear, Choveaux, Della and Abeyratne.)