Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Mar 26;70(693):e245-e254.
doi: 10.3399/bjgp20X708833. Print 2020 Apr.

Comparison of Centor and McIsaac scores in primary care: a meta-analysis over multiple thresholds

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Comparison of Centor and McIsaac scores in primary care: a meta-analysis over multiple thresholds

Brian H Willis et al. Br J Gen Pract. .

Erratum in

  • Correction.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Br J Gen Pract. 2020 Apr 30;70(694):230. doi: 10.3399/bjgp20X709565. Print 2020 May. Br J Gen Pract. 2020. PMID: 32354812 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Abstract

Background: Centor and McIsaac scores are both used to diagnose group A beta-haemolytic streptococcus (GABHS) infection, but have not been compared through meta-analysis.

Aim: To compare the performance of Centor and McIsaac scores at diagnosing patients with GABHS presenting to primary care with pharyngitis.

Design and setting: A meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies conducted in primary care was performed using a novel model that incorporates data at multiple thresholds.

Method: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched for studies published between January 1980 and February 2019. Included studies were: cross-sectional; recruited patients with sore throats from primary care; used the Centor or McIsaac score; had GABHS infection as the target diagnosis; used throat swab culture as the reference standard; and reported 2 × 2 tables across multiple thresholds. Selection and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. QUADAS-2 was used to assess study quality. Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were synthesised. Calibration curves were used to assess the transferability of results into practice.

Results: Ten studies using the Centor score and eight using the McIsaac score were included. The prevalence of GABHS ranged between 4% and 44%. The areas under the SROC curves for McIsaac and Centor scores were 0.7052 and 0.6888, respectively. The P-value for the difference (0.0164) was 0.419, suggesting the SROC curves for the tests are equivalent. Both scores demonstrated poor calibration.

Conclusion: Both Centor and McIsaac scores provide only fair discrimination of those with and without GABHS, and appear broadly equivalent in performance. The poor calibration for a positive test result suggests other point-of-care tests are required to rule in GABHS; however, with both Centor and McIsaac scores, a score of ≤0 may be sufficient to rule out infection.

Keywords: Centor score; McIsaac score; diagnosis; meta-analysis; pharyngitis; primary health care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flow chart of studies selected.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Centor score: ROC curves for each of the included studies. Each line corresponds to a single study and each dot corresponds to the (sensitivity, 1 − specificity) pair at a particular threshold for that study. ROC = receiver operating characteristic.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
McIsaac score: ROC curves for each of the included studies. Each line corresponds to a single study and each triangle corresponds to the (sensitivity, 1 − specificity) pair at a particular threshold for that study. ROC = receiver operating characteristic.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
SROC curves for the McIsaac and Centor scores. SROC = summary receiver operating characteristic.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Calibration plots (corrected for optimism) for the Centor and McIsaac scores for a positive test result when the prevalence of GABHS is assumed to be known. GABHS = group A beta-haemolytic streptococcus. PPV = positive predictive value.

Comment in

  • Clinical scores in primary care.
    Dambha-Miller H, Everitt H, Little P. Dambha-Miller H, et al. Br J Gen Pract. 2020 Mar 26;70(693):163. doi: 10.3399/bjgp20X708941. Print 2020 Apr. Br J Gen Pract. 2020. PMID: 32217572 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
  • Clinical scores in primary care.
    Willis BH, Coomar D, Baragilly M. Willis BH, et al. Br J Gen Pract. 2020 May 28;70(695):279. doi: 10.3399/bjgp20X709985. Print 2020 Jun. Br J Gen Pract. 2020. PMID: 32467198 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gulliford MC, Dregan A, Moore MV, et al. Continued high rates of antibiotic prescribing to adults with respiratory tract infection: survey of 568 UK general practices. BMJ Open. 2014;4:e006245. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dagnelie CF, Bartelink ML, van der Graaf Y, et al. Towards better diagnosis of throat infections (with group A beta-haemolytic streptococcus) in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1998;48(427):959–962. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Little P, Hobbs FD, Mant D, et al. Incidence and clinical variables associated with streptococcal throat infections: a prospective diagnostic cohort study. Br J Gen Pract. 2012 doi: 10.3399/bjgp12X658322. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Carapetis JR, Steer AC, Mulholland EK, Weber M. The global burden of group A streptococcal diseases. Lancet Infect Dis. 2005;5(11):685–694. - PubMed
    1. Centor RM, Whitherspoon JM, Dalton HP, et al. The diagnosis of strep throat in adults in the emergency room. Med Decis Making. 1981;1(3):239–246. - PubMed

Publication types