ArticlePediatric pulmonology2026
The Clinical Respiratory Score: Diagnostic Performance for Acute Chest Syndrome in Sickle Cell Disease.
Article in Pediatric pulmonology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Clinical Respiratory Score: Diagnostic Performance for Acute Chest Syndrome in Sickle Cell Disease.Pediatric pulmonology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcute chest syndrome (ACS) is a leading cause of morbidity in pediatric sickle cell disease (SCD). The Clinical Respiratory Score (CRS) is used prospectively at the bedside for ACS, whereas the NHLBI Clinical Severity Index (CSI) classifies ACS severity retrospectively. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of peak CRS to identify severe ACS.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with ACS (one admission each) aged 3-21 years at a tertiary children's hospital (2015-2021). Peak CRS was abstracted from bedside documentation; CSI (1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe) was assigned from the chart. The primary analysis estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive values (PPV/NPV), and accuracy of peak CRS ≥ 4 for identifying CSI = 3, with exact 95% confidence intervals. We prespecified a CRS 0-1 subgroup to assess NPV and de-escalation outcomes [respiratory support, transfusion, length of stay (LOS)].
resultsAmong 213 patients, peak CRS ≥ 4 predicted CSI = 3 with sensitivity 1.00 (95% CI 0.863-1.000), specificity 0.888 (0.835-0.926), PPV 0.543 (0.402-0.678), NPV 1.000 (0.978-1.000), and accuracy 0.901 (0.854-0.935). No severe events occurred with CRS < 4 (95% upper bound ~1.8%). In CRS 0-1 (n = 74), none had severe ACS (95% upper bound ~4.1%) nor required significant respiratory support; 75.7% were not transfused; and median LOS was 2.3 days (IQR 1.4-3.1).
conclusionPeak CRS ≥ 4 identifies a high-risk cohort for severe ACS; CRS 0-1 identifies a low-risk cohort requiring minimal intervention. CRS offers a bidirectional bedside tool to guide escalation and de-escalation of care; prospective validation is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.