Suppr超能文献

胆胰疾病流行病学研究中医院出院诊断的有效性。PANKRAS II研究组。

Validity of the hospital discharge diagnosis in epidemiologic studies of biliopancreatic pathology. PANKRAS II Study Group.

作者信息

Porta M, Costafreda S, Malats N, Guarner L, Soler M, Gubern J M, García-Olivares E, Andreu M, Salas A, Corominas J M, Alguacil J, Carrato A, Rifà J, Real F X

机构信息

Institut Municipal d'Investigació Mèdica, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain.

出版信息

Eur J Epidemiol. 2000 Jun;16(6):533-41. doi: 10.1023/a:1007692408457.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The aim was to analyse the magnitude, direction and predictors of change in the main hospital discharge diagnosis (HDD) after a clinical expert review, among patients included in a multicentre molecular epidemiologic study of biliopancreatic diseases.

METHODS

A total of 602 patients with a suspicion diagnosis of pancreas cancer (PC), cancer of the extrahepatic biliary system (CEBS) or benign biliopancreatic pathologies (BPP) were prospectively recruited at five general hospitals. A structured form was used to collect information from medical records. A panel of experts revised all diagnostic information and established the main clinicopathological diagnosis (CPD) by consensus.

RESULTS

Of the 204 cases with a HDD of PC, 176 (86%) were deemed to have a CPD of PC, eight of CEBS, twelve a neoplasm of different origin, four BPP and four syndromic diagnoses. Thus, 28 cases (14%) were false positives. Of the 129 patients with a HDD of CEBS, 15 (12%) were false positives. Nine of the 396 cases with a HDD of non-PC (2%) had a CPD of PC (false negatives), whilst 14 of 471 patients with a HDD of non-CEBS (3%) were deemed to have CEBS. Overall, sensitivity and specificity of HDD for PC were, respectively, 95 and 93%, and for CEBS, 89 and 97%. Cytohistological confirmation and laparotomy were independent predictors of diagnostic change.

CONCLUSIONS

Validity of the HDD was high, but its association with some clinical variables suggests that sole reliance on HDD can significantly bias results, and highlights the need to review all HDDs. Alternatively, only patients at high risk of misdiagnosis could be reviewed: primarily, those lacking a cytohistological diagnosis or a laparotomy. No exclusions appear warranted solely on the basis of age, gender or tumour spread.

摘要

背景

目的是分析在一项关于胆胰疾病的多中心分子流行病学研究纳入的患者中,经过临床专家审查后主要出院诊断(HDD)的变化幅度、方向及预测因素。

方法

在五家综合医院前瞻性招募了总共602例疑似胰腺癌(PC)、肝外胆管系统癌(CEBS)或良性胆胰疾病(BPP)的患者。使用结构化表格从病历中收集信息。一个专家小组对所有诊断信息进行了修订,并通过共识确定了主要临床病理诊断(CPD)。

结果

在204例HDD为PC的病例中,176例(86%)被认为CPD为PC,8例为CEBS,12例为不同起源的肿瘤,4例为BPP,4例为综合征诊断。因此,28例(14%)为假阳性。在129例HDD为CEBS的患者中,15例(12%)为假阳性。在396例HDD为非PC的病例中,9例(2%)的CPD为PC(假阴性),而在471例HDD为非CEBS的患者中,14例(3%)被认为患有CEBS。总体而言,HDD对PC的敏感性和特异性分别为95%和93%,对CEBS的敏感性和特异性分别为89%和97%。细胞组织学确认和剖腹手术是诊断变化的独立预测因素。

结论

HDD的有效性较高,但其与一些临床变量的关联表明,仅依赖HDD可能会使结果产生显著偏差,并突出了审查所有HDD的必要性。或者,也可以只审查误诊风险高的患者:主要是那些缺乏细胞组织学诊断或未进行剖腹手术的患者。似乎没有理由仅基于年龄、性别或肿瘤扩散进行排除。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验