Suppr超能文献

基层医疗实践中咽炎的评估与治疗:指南之间的差异在很大程度上只是理论上的。

Evaluation and treatment of pharyngitis in primary care practice: the difference between guidelines is largely academic.

作者信息

Linder Jeffrey A, Chan Joseph C, Bates David W

机构信息

Division of General Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02120, USA.

出版信息

Arch Intern Med. 2006 Jul 10;166(13):1374-9. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.13.1374.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The guidelines from the American College of Physicians and the Infectious Diseases Society of America differ with respect to the use of clinical criteria and microbiologic testing to identify adults with pharyngitis who are likely to have group A beta-hemolytic streptococci.

METHODS

To measure the rate of adherence to 3 strategies, we performed a retrospective analysis of visits to Boston, Mass, area primary care clinics by adults with a diagnosis of pharyngitis (n = 2097).

RESULTS

The 4-point Centor criteria recommended by the American College of Physicians and Infectious Diseases Society of America were not predictive of streptococcal testing (results for 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 criteria were 79%, 81%, 79%, 80%, and 74%, respectively; P = .63) but were predictive of a positive streptococcal test (8%, 13%, 22%, 31%, and 30%, respectively; P<.001) and of antibiotic prescribing (25%, 34%, 63%, 80%, and 89%, respectively; P<.001). Clinicians were adherent to the American College of Physicians' empirical strategy in 12% of visits, the American College of Physicians' test strategy in 30% of visits, the Infectious Diseases Society of America's strategy in 30% of visits, and adherent to none of these strategies in 66% of visits. The most common reason for nonadherence to any strategy was testing or antibiotic prescribing to patients at low risk of streptococcal pharyngitis (1076 visits; 78% of the visits in which physicians were nonadherent to any strategy), patients for whom the guidelines agree.

CONCLUSIONS

The major problem in the testing and treatment of adults with pharyngitis is not which guideline to follow, but that clinicians usually fail to follow any guideline. Interventions should focus on an area where the guidelines agree: avoiding testing and antibiotic prescribing to patients at low risk for streptococcal pharyngitis.

摘要

背景

美国医师学会和美国传染病学会发布的指南在使用临床标准和微生物检测来识别可能感染A组β溶血性链球菌的咽炎成年患者方面存在差异。

方法

为了衡量对三种策略的遵循率,我们对马萨诸塞州波士顿地区基层医疗诊所中诊断为咽炎的成年患者(n = 2097)的就诊情况进行了回顾性分析。

结果

美国医师学会和美国传染病学会推荐的4分制森托标准不能预测链球菌检测情况(0、1、2、3和4项标准对应的检测率分别为79%、81%、79%、80%和74%;P = 0.63),但能预测链球菌检测呈阳性的情况(分别为8%、13%、22%、31%和30%;P<0.001)以及抗生素处方情况(分别为25%、34%、63%、80%和89%;P<0.001)。临床医生在12%的就诊中遵循了美国医师学会的经验性策略,在30%的就诊中遵循了美国医师学会的检测策略,在30%的就诊中遵循了美国传染病学会的策略,在66%的就诊中未遵循任何一种策略。不遵循任何策略的最常见原因是对链球菌咽炎低风险患者进行检测或开具抗生素处方(1076次就诊;占医生未遵循任何策略的就诊次数的78%),而对于这类患者,指南的意见是一致的。

结论

成年咽炎患者检测和治疗中的主要问题不是遵循哪项指南,而是临床医生通常不遵循任何指南。干预措施应聚焦于指南意见一致的方面:避免对链球菌咽炎低风险患者进行检测和开具抗生素处方。

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