Background: Neither the Pneumonia Risk Score ( PRS ) nor the VALS-DANCE diagnostic tool has been externally validated using a reference standard specific for bacterial pneumonia. We used a previously published cohort of children with suspected bacterial pneumonia to externally validate these scores. Methods: Children attending Canadian pediatric emergency departments with suspected pneumonia had extensive standardized data collected that were provided to an expert panel to reach a consensus diagnosis. This diagnosis was used to externally validate both clinical scores. Proportions, point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, as appropriate, for the classifications and cutoffs recommended for PRS and VALS-Dance. Results: In a cohort of 236 children, the PRS classified 69 as low risk, 155 as moderate risk and 12 as high risk for “radiographic” pneumonia. Of these, 11/69 (15.9%), 44/155 (28.4%) and 5/12 (41.7%), respectively, had bacterial pneumonia, yielding a receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.64 (95% CI 0.56–0.71). The PRS low-risk grouping yielded negative likelihood ratio (−LR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.24–0.88) and the high-risk grouping a positive LR (+LR) 2.10 (95% CI −0.23 to 4.42) for bacterial pneumonia. In a cohort of 94 children, the VALS-DANCE Step1 cutoff yielded +LR 2.97 (95% CI 1.52–4.08) and −LR 0.19 (95% CI 0.05–0.33) for distinguishing bacterial from viral pneumonia. In a cohort of 53 children, the VALS-DANCE Step2 cutoff yielded +LR 13.1 (95% CI 0.83–208.8) and −LR 0.65 (95% CI 0.51–0.84) for distinguishing typical from atypical bacterial pneumonia. Conclusions: The PRS may have limited utility in the emergency department in guiding clinicians as to whether children with suspected pneumonia need antibiotics. For children hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia, the VALS-DANCE Step1 diagnostic tool may have some utility for ruling out, but little for confirming bacterial pneumonia. For those with bacterial pneumonia, VALS-DANCE Step2 has uncertain utility for confirming typical and little utility for diagnosing atypical pneumonia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robinson et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: