Suppr超能文献

阑尾炎诊断评分的临床益处:一项前瞻性干预研究的结果。德国急性腹痛研究组

Clinical benefit of a diagnostic score for appendicitis: results of a prospective interventional study. German Study Group of Acute Abdominal Pain.

作者信息

Ohmann C, Franke C, Yang Q

机构信息

Theoretical Surgery Unit, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany.

出版信息

Arch Surg. 1999 Sep;134(9):993-6. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.134.9.993.

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS

Clinical use of a diagnostic score improves decision making in acute appendicitis.

DESIGN

A before-and-after trial comparing a group of patients undergoing standard diagnostic workup with no additional diagnostic support (phase 1) with a group of patients undergoing additional diagnostic support with a score (phase 2).

SETTING

Eight departments of surgery in Germany and Austria.

PATIENTS

Eight hundred seventy patients with acute abdominal pain in phase 1 (October 1, 1994, to April 30, 1995) and 614 patients in phase 2 (February 1, 1995, to August 15, 1995).

INTERVENTIONS

Structured and standardized history and clinical investigation in all patients with computer-based documentation; introduction of the diagnostic score after phase 1 and computer-supported use of the score in phase 2.

RESULTS

The 2 groups were comparable with respect to signs, symptoms, and investigations related to acute appendicitis. Diagnostic performance of the final examiner decreased with the score (specificity, 86% vs 78%; positive predictive value, 67% vs 50%; and accuracy, 88% vs 81%). There were no differences in the rates of perforated appendix, appendectomy with normal findings, and complications; however, the delayed appendectomy rate (2% vs 8%) and the delayed discharge rate (11% vs 22%) were significantly lower with diagnostic support by the score (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Integration of a score into the diagnostic process may have unforeseen clinical effects. The tested score cannot be recommended as a standard tool for diagnostic decision making in acute appendicitis.

摘要

假设

诊断评分的临床应用可改善急性阑尾炎的决策制定。

设计

一项前后对照试验,将一组接受标准诊断检查且无额外诊断支持的患者(第1阶段)与一组接受评分额外诊断支持的患者(第2阶段)进行比较。

地点

德国和奥地利的8个外科科室。

患者

第1阶段(1994年10月1日至1995年4月30日)有870例急性腹痛患者,第2阶段(1995年2月1日至1995年8月15日)有614例患者。

干预措施

对所有患者进行结构化和标准化的病史及临床检查,并进行基于计算机的记录;在第1阶段后引入诊断评分,并在第2阶段通过计算机支持使用该评分。

结果

两组在与急性阑尾炎相关的体征、症状和检查方面具有可比性。最终检查者的诊断性能随着评分而下降(特异性,86%对78%;阳性预测值,67%对50%;准确性,88%对81%)。穿孔性阑尾炎、阑尾切除术后结果正常以及并发症的发生率没有差异;然而,在评分的诊断支持下,延迟阑尾切除率(2%对8%)和延迟出院率(11%对22%)显著更低(P = 0.02)。

结论

将评分纳入诊断过程可能会产生意想不到的临床效果。所测试的评分不能推荐作为急性阑尾炎诊断决策的标准工具。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验