Journals / Eurasian Journal of Family Medicine / 2020 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 4

Rapid Antigen Detection Test Using Rates of Family Physicians, TestResults and Its Impact on Their Prescription Behaviours

Aile Hekimlerinin Hızlı Antijen Testi Kullanım Oranları, Test Sonuçları ve Reçetelendirmeye Etkisi

Pages
225–232
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The fact that antibiotics are prescribed in rapid antigen detection test negative patients may indicate that confidence level of the test is less than physical examination and clinical findings.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The aim of this study is to determine the rates of rapid antigen detection test use, test results and its relationship with Modified Centor Score and investigate the effect of rapid antigen detection test use on prescribing behaviour.Methods: This research was conducted by scanning the family physicians¶ information system retrospectively.
📊
Key Findings & Data:From the Family Medicine Information System, where polyclinics and prescription records of the family health centers where 12 family physicians work in Kayseri are located, the number and results of rapid antigen detection tests performed between February 2017 and April 2019, the Modified Centor Score automatically calculated by the system, the number of prescribed antibiotics and symptomatic treatment information was recorded.Results: The positivity of rapid antigen detection test was considered, cut-off value of Modified Centor Score was >2 (ROC EAA:63.9, Cl:0.95,0.61-0.66).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The fact that antibiotics are prescribed in rapid antigen detection test negative patients may indicate that confidence level of the test is less than physical examination and clinical findings.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2017 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study is to determine the rates of rapid antigen detection test use, test results and its relationship with Modified Centor Score and investigate the effect of rapid antigen detection test use on prescribing behaviour.Methods: This research was conducted by scanning the family physicians¶ information system retrospectively. From the Family Medicine Information System, where polyclinics and prescription records of the family health centers where 12 family physicians work in Kayseri are located, the number and results of rapid antigen detection tests performed between February 2017 and April 2019, the Modified Centor Score automatically calculated by the system, the number of prescribed antibiotics and symptomatic treatment information was recorded.Results: The positivity of rapid antigen detection test was considered, cut-off value of Modified Centor Score was >2 (ROC EAA:63.9, Cl:0.95,0.61-0.66). Sensitivity rate of the test for diagnostic score was 86% and selectivity rate was 48.8%.Conclusion: Family physicians should be encouraged to use rapid antigen detection test. The fact that antibiotics are prescribed in rapid antigen detection test negative patients may indicate that confidence level of the test is less than physical examination and clinical findings.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, hızlı antijen testi kullanım oranlarını, test sonuçlarını, Modifiye Centor Skoru ile ilişkisini belirlemek ve hızlı antijen testi kullanımının reçete yazma davranışı üzerindeki etkisini araştırmaktır. Yöntem: Bu araştırma Aile Hekimliği Bilgi Sistemi retrospektif taranarak yapılmıştır. Kayseri'de 12 aile hekiminin çalıştığı aile sağlığı merkezinin poliklinik ve reçete kayıtlarının yer aldığı Aile Hekimliği Bilgi Sistemi'nden, 2017 Şubat ile 2019 Nisan ayları arasında yapılan hızlı antijen testi testi sayısı ve sonuçları, sistem tarafından otomatik hesaplanan Modifiye Centor Skorları, reçetelenen antibiyotik sayıları ve semptomatik tedavi bilgileri kaydedildi. Bulgular: Hızlı antijen testi pozitifliği dikkate alınarak bakıldığında Modifiye Centor Skoru cut- off değeri >2 idi (ROC EAA:63,9, Cl:0,95,0,61-0,66). Tanı puanı için testin duyarlılığı %86, seçiciliği %48,8'dir. Sonuç: Aile hekimleri tarafından hızlı antijen testi kullanımı teşvik edilmelidir. Hızlı antijen testi negatif hastalarda da antibiyotik reçete ediliyor olması teste olan güvenin fizik muayeneye ve klinik bulgulara olan güvenden daha az olduğunun bir göstergesi olabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ONUK, F. A., ASLANER, H., ASLANER, H. A., BENLİ, A. R., ARIK, B. E., MISTIK, S. (2022). Rapid Antigen Detection Test Using Rates of Family Physicians, TestResults and Its Impact on Their Prescription Behaviours. Eurasian Journal of Family Medicine, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 4, 225–232. https://ajindex.com/articles/508326

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Tanz RR, Gerber MA, Kabat W, Rippe J, Seshadri R, Shulman ST. Performance of a rapid antigen-detection test and throat culture in community pediatric offices: Implications for management of pharyngitis. Pediatrics 2009;123:437–44. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-0488
  2. Gerber MA. Comparison of throat cultures and rapid strep tests for diagnosis of streptococcal pharyngitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1989;8(11):820-4. doi: 10.1097/00006454-198911000-00032
  3. Lieu TA, Fleisher GR, Schwartz JS. Clinical evaluation of a latex agglutination test for streptococcal pharyngitis: performance and impact on treatment rates. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1988;7(12):847-54
  4. Hashigucci K, Matsunobu T. Etiology of acute pharyngitis in adults: the presence of viruses and bacteria. Nippon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho 2003;106:532–9. doi: 10.3950/jibiinkoka.106.532
  5. Centor RM, Witherspoon JM, Dalton HP, Brody CE, Link K. The diagnosis of strep throat in adults in the emergency room. Med Decis Mak 1981;1(3):239-46. doi: 10.1177/0272989X8100100304
  6. Pelucchi C, Grigoryan L, Galeone C, Esposito S, Huovinen P, Little P, et al. Guideline for the management of acute sore throat. Clin Microbiol Infect 2012;18:1–27. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03766.x
  7. Gözüküçük R, Göçmen İ, Nas Y, Yılmazer F, Ünüvar E. Streptokoksik tonsillofarenjit tanısında Strep-A hızlı testinin etkinliği. Çocuk Derg 2011;11(4):157-9. doi.org/10.5222/j.child.2011.157
  8. Choby BA. Diagnosis and treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis. Am Fam Physician 2009;79:383–90. doi: 10.1001/jama.254.7.907
  9. Shulman ST, Bisno AL, Clegg HW, Gerber MA, Kaplan EL, Lee G, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of group a streptococcal pharyngitis: 2012 update by the infectious diseases society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2012;55:86–102. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis629
  10. Bisno AL, Peter GS, Kaplan EL. Diagnosis of strep throat in adults: are clinical criteria really good enough? Clin Infect Dis 2002;35:126–9. doi: 10.1086/342056
  11. Gonzales R, Camargo CA, MacKenzie T, Kersey AS, Maselli J, Levin SK, et al. Antibiotic treatment of acute respiratory infections in acute care settings. Acad Emerg Med 2006;13:288–94. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2005.10.016
  12. Linder JA, Bates DW, Lee GM, Finkelstein JA. Antibiotic treatment of children with sore throat. J Am Med Assoc 2005;294:2315–22. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.18.2315
  13. Portier H, Peyramond D, Boucot I, Grappin M, Boibieux A, Pribil C, et al. Assessing applicability of Co