Suppr超能文献

External validation and comparison of recently described prediction rules for suspected pulmonary embolism.

作者信息

Righini Marc, Bounameaux Henri

机构信息

Division of Angiology and Hemostasis, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.

出版信息

Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2004 Sep;10(5):345-9. doi: 10.1097/01.mcp.0000130329.21799.7b.

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The assessment of pretest probability, allowing the categorization of patients clinically suspected of having pulmonary embolism in low, intermediate, and high clinical probability, is an essential step in contemporary diagnostic strategies because it permits limiting the number of additional diagnostic tests, especially invasive tests. Clinical probability can be evaluated implicitly or by prediction rules. Two prediction rules for pulmonary embolism have been described: the Canadian prediction rule (the Wells score) and the Geneva prediction rule. Their original descriptions were published in 2000 and 2001, respectively. These prediction rules need to be externally validated, and, ideally, outcome studies should demonstrate that patients may be safely treated on the basis of the assessment of the clinical probability they provide. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to discuss the external validation of these rules, because this particular point has been only recently achieved.

RECENT FINDINGS

Application of both rules in an external setting and in a prospective study have confirmed their validity. A recent study suggests that the best evaluation is probably based on a prediction rule associated with possible clinical override.

SUMMARY

Studies comparing an empiric assessment with explicit assessment, such as the Wells simplified score or the Geneva score, have shown that the three tools show similar accuracy. External validation and use of both rules in prospective management studies have only recently been performed and have confirmed their validity. Some reports suggest that empiric assessment may be influenced by level of training. Objective prediction rules seems to be less influenced by experience and should be preferred by more junior doctors. The tool used for clinical probability assessment is probably less important than the principle of a careful clinical probability assessment in each patient with suspected pulmonary embolism.

摘要

相似文献

1
External validation and comparison of recently described prediction rules for suspected pulmonary embolism.
Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2004 Sep;10(5):345-9. doi: 10.1097/01.mcp.0000130329.21799.7b.
4
Does this patient have pulmonary embolism?
JAMA. 2003 Dec 3;290(21):2849-58. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.21.2849.
5
New methods for estimating pretest probability in the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism.
Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2001 Sep;7(5):349-53. doi: 10.1097/00063198-200109000-00017.
6
Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score.
Ann Intern Med. 2006 Feb 7;144(3):165-71. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-3-200602070-00004.

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