A systematic review of the history and physical examination to diagnose influenza

Mark H. Ebell, Linda L. White, Tracy Casault

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Although influenza is a commonly encountered condition in primary care, and diagnosis is increasingly important given the availability of new treatments, there has been no systematic review of the evidence on clinical diagnosis. Methods: This was a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis where appropriate. We included cohort studies and randomized trials that compared the history and physical examination with a reference laboratory test for the diagnosis of influenza A and/or B. The primary outcomes were the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: Seven studies reported the sensitivity and specificity for a total of 59 variables. We combined studies of influenza A or B alone with those of influenza A and B. Rigors [likelihood ratio (LR) +7.2], the combination of fever and presenting within 3 days of the onset of illness (LR +4.0), and sweating (LR +3.0) were best at ruling-in influenza when present. When absent, the following decreased the likelihood of influenza: any systemic symptoms (LR -0.36), coughing (LR -0.38), not being able to cope with daily activities (LR -0.39), and being confined to bed (LR -0.50). Cough, nasal congestion, and fever (subjective or objective) had the highest calculable areas under the ROC curve. Conclusions: Individual signs and symptoms are of limited value for the diagnosis of influenza. Development of clinical decision rules that systematically combine symptoms may be a more useful strategy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-5
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of the American Board of Family Practice
Volume17
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 1 2004
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Human Influenza
Physical Examination
History
ROC Curve
Fever
Sensitivity and Specificity
Sick Leave
Sweating
Clinical Laboratory Techniques
Nose
Cough
Signs and Symptoms
Meta-Analysis
Primary Health Care
Cohort Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

A systematic review of the history and physical examination to diagnose influenza. / Ebell, Mark H.; White, Linda L.; Casault, Tracy.

In: Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, Vol. 17, No. 1, 01.01.2004, p. 1-5.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Ebell, Mark H. ; White, Linda L. ; Casault, Tracy. / A systematic review of the history and physical examination to diagnose influenza. In: Journal of the American Board of Family Practice. 2004 ; Vol. 17, No. 1. pp. 1-5.
@article{e1dd287f96bf48749fb8b3e0eaec8aaa,
title = "A systematic review of the history and physical examination to diagnose influenza",
abstract = "Background: Although influenza is a commonly encountered condition in primary care, and diagnosis is increasingly important given the availability of new treatments, there has been no systematic review of the evidence on clinical diagnosis. Methods: This was a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis where appropriate. We included cohort studies and randomized trials that compared the history and physical examination with a reference laboratory test for the diagnosis of influenza A and/or B. The primary outcomes were the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: Seven studies reported the sensitivity and specificity for a total of 59 variables. We combined studies of influenza A or B alone with those of influenza A and B. Rigors [likelihood ratio (LR) +7.2], the combination of fever and presenting within 3 days of the onset of illness (LR +4.0), and sweating (LR +3.0) were best at ruling-in influenza when present. When absent, the following decreased the likelihood of influenza: any systemic symptoms (LR -0.36), coughing (LR -0.38), not being able to cope with daily activities (LR -0.39), and being confined to bed (LR -0.50). Cough, nasal congestion, and fever (subjective or objective) had the highest calculable areas under the ROC curve. Conclusions: Individual signs and symptoms are of limited value for the diagnosis of influenza. Development of clinical decision rules that systematically combine symptoms may be a more useful strategy.",
author = "Ebell, {Mark H.} and White, {Linda L.} and Tracy Casault",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "1--5",
journal = "Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine",
issn = "1557-2625",
publisher = "American Board of Family Medicine",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A systematic review of the history and physical examination to diagnose influenza

AU - Ebell, Mark H.

AU - White, Linda L.

AU - Casault, Tracy

PY - 2004/1/1

Y1 - 2004/1/1

N2 - Background: Although influenza is a commonly encountered condition in primary care, and diagnosis is increasingly important given the availability of new treatments, there has been no systematic review of the evidence on clinical diagnosis. Methods: This was a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis where appropriate. We included cohort studies and randomized trials that compared the history and physical examination with a reference laboratory test for the diagnosis of influenza A and/or B. The primary outcomes were the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: Seven studies reported the sensitivity and specificity for a total of 59 variables. We combined studies of influenza A or B alone with those of influenza A and B. Rigors [likelihood ratio (LR) +7.2], the combination of fever and presenting within 3 days of the onset of illness (LR +4.0), and sweating (LR +3.0) were best at ruling-in influenza when present. When absent, the following decreased the likelihood of influenza: any systemic symptoms (LR -0.36), coughing (LR -0.38), not being able to cope with daily activities (LR -0.39), and being confined to bed (LR -0.50). Cough, nasal congestion, and fever (subjective or objective) had the highest calculable areas under the ROC curve. Conclusions: Individual signs and symptoms are of limited value for the diagnosis of influenza. Development of clinical decision rules that systematically combine symptoms may be a more useful strategy.

AB - Background: Although influenza is a commonly encountered condition in primary care, and diagnosis is increasingly important given the availability of new treatments, there has been no systematic review of the evidence on clinical diagnosis. Methods: This was a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis where appropriate. We included cohort studies and randomized trials that compared the history and physical examination with a reference laboratory test for the diagnosis of influenza A and/or B. The primary outcomes were the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: Seven studies reported the sensitivity and specificity for a total of 59 variables. We combined studies of influenza A or B alone with those of influenza A and B. Rigors [likelihood ratio (LR) +7.2], the combination of fever and presenting within 3 days of the onset of illness (LR +4.0), and sweating (LR +3.0) were best at ruling-in influenza when present. When absent, the following decreased the likelihood of influenza: any systemic symptoms (LR -0.36), coughing (LR -0.38), not being able to cope with daily activities (LR -0.39), and being confined to bed (LR -0.50). Cough, nasal congestion, and fever (subjective or objective) had the highest calculable areas under the ROC curve. Conclusions: Individual signs and symptoms are of limited value for the diagnosis of influenza. Development of clinical decision rules that systematically combine symptoms may be a more useful strategy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=2342633194&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=2342633194&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

VL - 17

SP - 1

EP - 5

JO - Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

JF - Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine

SN - 1557-2625

IS - 1

ER -