Validity of Clinical Severity Scores for Respiratory Syncytial Virus: A Systematic Review.

Harish Nair, You Li, Louis Bont, Zakariya Sheikh, Ellie Potter, Rachel A Cohen, Gaël Dos Santos

Journal: The Journal of infectious diseases 2024;229(Supplement_1):S8-S17

PMID: 37797314

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a widespread respiratory pathogen, and RSV-related acute lower respiratory tract infections are the most common cause of respiratory hospitalization in children <2 years of age. Over the last 2 decades, a number of severity scores have been proposed to quantify disease severity for RSV in children, yet there remains no overall consensus on the most clinically useful score.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of English-language publications in peer-reviewed journals published since January 2000 assessing the validity of severity scores for children (≤24 months of age) with RSV and/or bronchiolitis, and identified the most promising scores. For included articles, (1) validity data were extracted, (2) quality of reporting was assessed using the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis checklist (TRIPOD), and (3) quality was assessed using the Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). To guide the assessment of the validity data, standardized cutoffs were employed, and an explicit definition of what we required to determine a score was sufficiently validated.

RESULTS

Our searches identified 8541 results, of which 1779 were excluded as duplicates. After title and abstract screening, 6670 references were excluded. Following full-text screening and snowballing, 32 articles, including 31 scores, were included. The most frequently assessed scores were the modified Tal score and the Wang Bronchiolitis Severity Score; none of the scores were found to be sufficiently validated according to our definition. The reporting and/or design of all the included studies was poor. The best validated score was the Bronchiolitis Score of Sant Joan de Déu, and a number of other promising scores were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

No scores were found to be sufficiently validated. Further work is warranted to validate the existing scores, ideally in much larger datasets.

© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected].

Address: Edinburgh Medical School, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.; School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, China.; Epidemiology Viral Non-respiratory VaccinesValue Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, Wavre, Belgium.; Epidemiology Bacterial Vaccines, Value Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, Wavre, Belgium.; Department of Pediatrics, University Medical Center Utrecht, The Netherlands.; School of Public Health, Nanjing Medical University, China.; Usher Institute, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.; MRC/Wits Rural Public Health and Health Transitions Research Unit (Agincourt), School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.