Seaman M, Lammers R
Department of Emergency Medicine, Valley Medical Center, Fresno, California.
J Emerg Med. 1991 Jul-Aug;9(4):215-9. doi: 10.1016/0736-4679(91)90416-d.
At the time of follow-up wound inspection or suture removal, 433 patients were questioned about signs of wound infection. Patients' answers were compared to evaluations by medical examiners. Patients frequently failed to recognize infection and signs of inflammation. When asked if wound infection was present, patients' false positive diagnostic rate was only 8%, but the false negative diagnostic rate was 48%. Medical examiners diagnosed wound infection in 21 wounds, and patients correctly identified their infections in only 11 of these cases. These results indicate that for the population studied, patients cannot be expected to recognize infection in their own wounds using verbal or printed instructions. Clinical investigators of wound healing should not use patient-reported data about wound infection that is obtained by telephone interview or other means.
在随访伤口检查或拆线时，对433名患者询问了伤口感染的迹象。将患者的回答与医学检查人员的评估进行比较。患者经常无法识别感染和炎症迹象。当被问及是否存在伤口感染时，患者的假阳性诊断率仅为8%，但假阴性诊断率为48%。医学检查人员诊断出21处伤口感染，而患者仅在其中11例中正确识别出自己的感染。这些结果表明，对于所研究的人群，不能期望患者通过口头或书面指示识别自己伤口的感染。伤口愈合的临床研究人员不应使用通过电话访谈或其他方式获得的患者报告的伤口感染数据。
