HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) HTML Page - index.htslp Supplemental Table. Complete Data for Meta-Analysis, Organized by Type of Influenza Rapid Responses: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ebell, M. H. Articles by Casault, T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ebell, M. H. Articles by Casault, T.

A Systematic Review of the History and Physical Examination to Diagnose Influenza

From the Department of Family Practice (ME, LW), Michigan State University (TC), East Lansing. Address correspondence to Mark H. Ebell, MD, MS, 330 Snapfinger Drive, Athens GA 30605 (e-mail: ebell{at}msu.edu)

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.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. A. Call, M. A. Vollenweider, C. A. Hornung, D. L. Simel, and W. P. McKinney Does This Patient Have Influenza? JAMA, February 23, 2005; 293(8): 987 - 997. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]