Diagnostic performance of clinical prediction rules to detect group A beta-haemolytic streptococci in people with acute pharyngitis: a systematic review

Objective: To assess and compare the diagnostic performance of Clinical Prediction Rules (CPRs) developed to detect group A Beta-haemolytic streptococci in people with acute pharyngitis (or sore throat). Study design: A systematic review. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science (inception-September 2022) for studies deriving and/or validating CPRs comprised of >= 2 predictors from an individual's history or physical examination. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. A meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity. Instead we compared the performance of CPRs when they were validated in the same study population (head-to-head comparisons). We used a modified grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) approach to assess certainty of the evidence. Results: We included 63 studies, all judged at high risk of bias. Of 24 derived CPRs, 7 were externally validated (in 46 external validations). Five validation studies provided data for head-to-head comparison of four pairs of CPRs. Very low certainty evidence favoured the Centor CPR over the McIsaac (2 studies) and FeverPain CPRs (1 study) and found the Centor CPR was equivalent to the Walsh CPR (1 study). The AbuReesh and Steinhoff 2005 CPRs had a similar poor discriminative ability (1 study). Within and between study comparisons suggested the performance of the Centor CPR may be better in adults (>18 years). Conclusion: Very low certainty evidence suggests a better performance of the Centor CPR. When deciding about antibiotic prescribing for pharyngitis patients, involving patients in a shared decision making discussion about the likely benefits and harms, including antibiotic resistance, is recommended. Further research of higher rigour, which compares CPRs across multiple settings, is needed. (c) 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The Royal Society for Public Health.