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

Abstract

BackgroundCentor and McIsaac scores are both used to diagnose group A beta-haemolytic streptococcus (GABHS) infection, but have not been compared through meta-analysis.AimTo compare the performance of Centor and McIsaac scores at diagnosing patients with GABHS presenting to primary care with pharyngitis.Design and settingA meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies conducted in primary care was performed using a novel model that incorporates data at multiple thresholds.MethodMEDLINE, 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.ResultsTen 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.ConclusionBoth 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.