Development of a diarrhoea severity scoring scale in a passive health facility-based surveillance system.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
13
10
2021
accepted:
31
07
2022
entrez:
15
8
2022
pubmed:
16
8
2022
medline:
18
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Diarrhoeal disease remains a leading cause of death among children mostly in low and middle-income countries. Factors contributing to disease severity are complex and there is currently no consensus on a scoring tool for use in community-based studies. Data were collected during a passive surveillance system in an outpatient health facility in Lusaka, Zambia from March 2019 to July 2019. Diarrhea episodes were assessed for severity using an in-house severity scoring tool (CIDRZ) and previously published scores (Vesikari, Clark, CODA, and DHAKA). The CIDRZ score was constructed using fieldworker-reported clinical signs and exploratory factor analysis. We used precision-recall curves measuring severe diarrhoea (i.e., requiring intravenous rehydration or referred for hospital admission) to determine the best performing scores. Then, we used Cronbach's alpha to assess the scale's internal consistency. Finally, we used Cohen's kappa to assess agreement between the scores. Of 110 diarrhea episodes, 3 (3%) required intravenous rehydration or were referred for hospital admission. The precision-recall area under the curve of each score as a predictor of severe diarrhoea requiring intravenous rehydration or hospital admission was 0.26 for Vesikari, 0.18 for CODA, 0.24 for Clark, 0.59 for DHAKA, and 0.59 for CIDRZ. The CIDRZ scale had substantial reliability and performed similarly to the DHAKA score. Diarrhoea severity scores focused on characteristics specific to dehydration status may better predict severe diarrhea among children in Lusaka. Aetiology-specific scoring tools may not be appropriate for use in community healthcare settings. Validation studies for the CIDRZ score in diverse settings and with larger sample sizes are warranted.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Diarrhoeal disease remains a leading cause of death among children mostly in low and middle-income countries. Factors contributing to disease severity are complex and there is currently no consensus on a scoring tool for use in community-based studies.
METHODS
Data were collected during a passive surveillance system in an outpatient health facility in Lusaka, Zambia from March 2019 to July 2019. Diarrhea episodes were assessed for severity using an in-house severity scoring tool (CIDRZ) and previously published scores (Vesikari, Clark, CODA, and DHAKA). The CIDRZ score was constructed using fieldworker-reported clinical signs and exploratory factor analysis. We used precision-recall curves measuring severe diarrhoea (i.e., requiring intravenous rehydration or referred for hospital admission) to determine the best performing scores. Then, we used Cronbach's alpha to assess the scale's internal consistency. Finally, we used Cohen's kappa to assess agreement between the scores.
RESULTS
Of 110 diarrhea episodes, 3 (3%) required intravenous rehydration or were referred for hospital admission. The precision-recall area under the curve of each score as a predictor of severe diarrhoea requiring intravenous rehydration or hospital admission was 0.26 for Vesikari, 0.18 for CODA, 0.24 for Clark, 0.59 for DHAKA, and 0.59 for CIDRZ. The CIDRZ scale had substantial reliability and performed similarly to the DHAKA score.
CONCLUSIONS
Diarrhoea severity scores focused on characteristics specific to dehydration status may better predict severe diarrhea among children in Lusaka. Aetiology-specific scoring tools may not be appropriate for use in community healthcare settings. Validation studies for the CIDRZ score in diverse settings and with larger sample sizes are warranted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35969615
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272981
pii: PONE-D-21-32187
pmc: PMC9377573
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0272981Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Nov;18(11):1211-1228
pubmed: 30243583
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Jan;20(1):37-59
pubmed: 31678029
Glob Health Sci Pract. 2015 Aug 18;3(3):405-18
pubmed: 26374802
Scand J Infect Dis. 1990;22(3):259-67
pubmed: 2371542
J Infect Dis. 1988 Sep;158(3):570-87
pubmed: 2842405
BMC Public Health. 2012 Apr 06;12:276
pubmed: 22480268
Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2018 Jan;5(1):29-43
pubmed: 29344358
BMJ Open. 2014 Jun 06;4(6):e004816
pubmed: 24907244
Infect Dis (Lond). 2015 May;47(5):332-7
pubmed: 25715939
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 13;11(7):e0158862
pubmed: 27411101
JAMA Pediatr. 2018 Oct 1;172(10):958-965
pubmed: 30105384
Lancet Glob Health. 2020 Feb;8(2):e204-e214
pubmed: 31864916
FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2000 Jul;28(3):257-63
pubmed: 10865179
PLoS Med. 2016 May 03;13(5):e1002010
pubmed: 27138888
Int J Nurs Stud. 2014 Mar;51(3):511-21
pubmed: 24183474
Lancet. 2017 Sep 16;390(10100):1151-1210
pubmed: 28919116
Vaccine. 2008 Oct 29;26(46):5798-801
pubmed: 18786584
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Nov 2;73(9):e2493-e2499
pubmed: 32592580
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2016 Nov;63(5):466-473
pubmed: 27347723
BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Apr 15;19(1):322
pubmed: 30987589
BMC Med. 2019 Nov 25;17(1):214
pubmed: 31767012
PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e55063
pubmed: 23383058
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Feb 8;13(2):e0007154
pubmed: 30735493
PLoS One. 2020 Apr 27;15(4):e0232113
pubmed: 32339187