Bandiera Glen, Stiell Ian G, Wells George A, Clement Catherine, De Maio Valerie, Vandemheen Katherine L, Greenberg Gary H, Lesiuk Howard, Brison Robert, Cass Daniel, Dreyer Jonathan, Eisenhauer Mary A, Macphail Iain, McKnight R Douglas, Morrison Laurie, Reardon Mark, Schull Michael, Worthington James
Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Ann Emerg Med. 2003 Sep;42(3):395-402. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(03)00422-0.
We compare the predictive accuracy of emergency physicians' unstructured clinical judgment to the Canadian C-Spine rule.
This prospective multicenter cohort study was conducted at 10 Canadian urban academic emergency departments. Included in the study were alert, stable, adult patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 and trauma to the head or neck. This was a substudy of the Canadian C-Spine and CT Head Study. Eligible patients were prospectively evaluated before radiography. Physicians estimated the probability of unstable cervical spine injury from 0% to 100% according to clinical judgment alone and filled out a data form. Interobserver assessments were done when feasible. Patients underwent cervical spine radiography or follow-up to determine clinically important cervical spine injuries. Analyses included comparison of areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the kappa coefficient.
During 18 months, 6265 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 36.6 years (range 16 to 97 years), and 50.1% were men. Sixty-four (1%) patients had a clinically important injury. The physicians' kappa for a 0% predicted probability of injury was 0.46 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.65). The respective areas under the ROC curve for predicting cervical spine injury were 0.85 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.89) for physician judgment and 0.91 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.92) for the Canadian C-Spine rule (P <.05). With a threshold of 0% predicted probability of injury, the respective indices of accuracy for physicians and the Canadian C-Spine rule were sensitivity 92.2% versus 100% (P <.001) and specificity 53.9% versus 44.0% (P <.001).
Interobserver agreement of unstructured clinical judgment for predicting clinically important cervical spine injury is only fair, and the sensitivity is unacceptably low. The Canadian C-Spine rule was better at detecting clinically important injuries with a sensitivity of 100%. Prospective validation has recently been completed and should permit widespread use of the Canadian C-Spine rule.
我们将急诊医生的非结构化临床判断与加拿大颈椎规则的预测准确性进行比较。
这项前瞻性多中心队列研究在加拿大10个城市的学术急诊部门进行。纳入研究的是格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分为15分且头部或颈部有创伤的警觉、稳定的成年患者。这是加拿大颈椎和头部CT研究的一项子研究。符合条件的患者在进行影像学检查前进行前瞻性评估。医生仅根据临床判断估计颈椎损伤不稳定的概率,范围为0%至100%,并填写一份数据表格。可行时进行观察者间评估。患者接受颈椎影像学检查或随访以确定具有临床意义的颈椎损伤。分析包括比较受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线下面积及其95%置信区间(CI)和kappa系数。
在18个月期间,共纳入6265例患者。平均年龄为36.6岁(范围16至97岁),50.1%为男性。64例(1%)患者有具有临床意义的损伤。医生对损伤预测概率为0%时的kappa值为0.46(95%CI 0.28至0.65)。预测颈椎损伤时,医生判断的ROC曲线下面积为0.85(95%CI 0.80至0.89),加拿大颈椎规则的为0.91(95%CI 0.89至0.92)(P<.05)。以损伤预测概率为0%为阈值,医生和加拿大颈椎规则各自的准确性指标分别为:敏感性92.2%对100%(P<.001),特异性53.9%对44.0%(P<.001)。
预测具有临床意义的颈椎损伤时,非结构化临床判断的观察者间一致性仅为一般水平,且敏感性低得不可接受。加拿大颈椎规则在检测具有临床意义的损伤方面表现更好,敏感性为100%。最近已完成前瞻性验证,这应能使加拿大颈椎规则得到广泛应用。