• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

CHALICE 临床预测规则在英国以外地区儿童颅内损伤中的应用:对头 CT 率的影响。

Application of the CHALICE clinical prediction rule for intracranial injury in children outside the UK: impact on head CT rate.

机构信息

University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

出版信息

Arch Dis Child. 2010 Dec;95(12):1017-22. doi: 10.1136/adc.2009.174854. Epub 2010 Jun 23.

DOI:10.1136/adc.2009.174854
PMID:20573733
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The children's head injury algorithm for the prediction of important clinical events (CHALICE) is one of the strongest clinical prediction rules for the management of children with head injuries. The authors set out to determine the impact of this rule on the proportion of head injured patients receiving a CT scan in a major Australian paediatric emergency department.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary paediatric hospital emergency department in Australia (67 000 patients/year).

PATIENTS

All head injured patients presenting to the emergency department in 2004.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Actual proportion of head injured patients receiving a CT scan compared with the proportion had the CHALICE algorithm been applied.

RESULTS

There were 1091 head injuries of all severities during the study period. 18% of head injured patients had a Glasgow Coma Scale <15, 19% a CT scan and 1.4% neurosurgical intervention. Application of the CHALICE algorithm would result in 46% receiving a CT scan. 303 patients who fit CHALICE criteria did not have a CT scan. These patients were managed with admission for observation or discharge and head injury instructions. Only five of these (1.6% or 0.5% of total head injuries) received a CT scan on representation for ongoing symptoms, four of which showed abnormalities on CT scan.

CONCLUSIONS

Application of the CHALICE rule to this non-UK dataset would double the proportion of CT scans, with an apparent small gain in delayed pick-up of CT abnormalities. The role of expectant observation in hospital or at home needs to be defined.

摘要

目的

儿童头部损伤算法用于预测重要临床事件(CHALICE)是用于管理头部损伤儿童的最强临床预测规则之一。作者旨在确定该规则对澳大利亚主要儿科急诊部门接受 CT 扫描的头部受伤患者比例的影响。

设计

回顾性队列研究。

设置

澳大利亚三级儿科医院急诊部(每年 67000 例患者)。

患者

2004 年在急诊部就诊的所有头部受伤患者。

主要观察指标

实际接受 CT 扫描的头部受伤患者比例与应用 CHALICE 算法的比例进行比较。

结果

在研究期间,共有 1091 例各种严重程度的头部损伤。18%的头部受伤患者格拉斯哥昏迷量表(Glasgow Coma Scale)<15,19%的患者进行了 CT 扫描,1.4%的患者接受了神经外科干预。应用 CHALICE 算法将导致 46%的患者接受 CT 扫描。符合 CHALICE 标准但未进行 CT 扫描的 303 例患者。这些患者接受住院观察或出院并接受头部损伤指导。其中只有 5 例(1.6%或总头部损伤的 0.5%)因持续症状就诊而接受 CT 扫描,其中 4 例 CT 扫描显示异常。

结论

将 CHALICE 规则应用于这个非英国数据集将使 CT 扫描的比例增加一倍,而 CT 异常的延迟检出率似乎略有增加。需要明确在医院或在家中进行观察的作用。

相似文献

1
Application of the CHALICE clinical prediction rule for intracranial injury in children outside the UK: impact on head CT rate.CHALICE 临床预测规则在英国以外地区儿童颅内损伤中的应用:对头 CT 率的影响。
Arch Dis Child. 2010 Dec;95(12):1017-22. doi: 10.1136/adc.2009.174854. Epub 2010 Jun 23.
2
Applicability of the CATCH, CHALICE and PECARN paediatric head injury clinical decision rules: pilot data from a single Australian centre.适用于 CATCH、CHALICE 和 PECARN 儿科头部损伤临床决策规则的研究:来自澳大利亚单一中心的初步数据。
Emerg Med J. 2013 Oct;30(10):790-4. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2012-201887. Epub 2012 Sep 26.
3
Derivation of the children's head injury algorithm for the prediction of important clinical events decision rule for head injury in children.儿童头部损伤算法的推导:用于预测儿童头部损伤重要临床事件的决策规则
Arch Dis Child. 2006 Nov;91(11):885-91. doi: 10.1136/adc.2005.083980.
4
Accuracy of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE head injury decision rules in children: a prospective cohort study.PECARN、CATCH 和 CHALICE 头部损伤决策规则在儿童中的准确性:一项前瞻性队列研究。
Lancet. 2017 Jun 17;389(10087):2393-2402. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30555-X. Epub 2017 Apr 11.
5
A prospective observational study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of clinical decision rules for children presenting to emergency departments after head injuries (protocol): the Australasian Paediatric Head Injury Rules Study (APHIRST).一项前瞻性观察性研究,旨在评估临床决策规则在儿童头部受伤后就诊急诊科时的诊断准确性(方案):澳大利亚儿科头部损伤规则研究(APHIRST)。
BMC Pediatr. 2014 Jun 13;14:148. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-14-148.
6
Comparing CATCH, CHALICE and PECARN clinical decision rules for paediatric head injuries.比较 CATCH、CHALICE 和 PECARN 临床决策规则在儿科头部损伤中的应用。
Emerg Med J. 2012 Oct;29(10):785-94. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2011-200225. Epub 2012 Jan 30.
7
Accuracy of Clinician Practice Compared With Three Head Injury Decision Rules in Children: A Prospective Cohort Study.临床医生实践与三种头部损伤决策规则在儿童中的准确性比较:一项前瞻性队列研究。
Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Jun;71(6):703-710. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.01.015. Epub 2018 Feb 14.
8
Comparison of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE rules for children with minor head injury: a prospective cohort study.小儿轻度头部损伤的PECARN、CATCH和CHALICE规则比较:一项前瞻性队列研究。
Ann Emerg Med. 2014 Aug;64(2):145-52, 152.e1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.01.030. Epub 2014 Mar 11.
9
Implementation of adapted PECARN decision rule for children with minor head injury in the pediatric emergency department.在儿科急诊实施改良版 PECARN 决策规则用于治疗轻微头部损伤患儿。
Acad Emerg Med. 2012 Jul;19(7):801-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2012.01384.x. Epub 2012 Jun 22.
10
Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network head injury clinical prediction rules are reliable in practice.儿科急诊护理应用研究网络的头部损伤临床预测规则在实践中是可靠的。
Arch Dis Child. 2014 May;99(5):427-31. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-305004. Epub 2014 Jan 15.

引用本文的文献

1
Grading and assessment of clinical predictive tools for paediatric head injury: a new evidence-based approach.儿童头部损伤临床预测工具的分级和评估:一种新的基于证据的方法。
BMC Emerg Med. 2019 Jun 14;19(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12873-019-0249-y.
2
Large Variety of Medical Specialties Involved in Management of Pediatric Minor Traumatic Head Injury in the Netherlands.荷兰参与小儿轻度创伤性脑损伤管理的医学专业种类繁多。
Glob Pediatr Health. 2019 Apr 26;6:2333794X19846117. doi: 10.1177/2333794X19846117. eCollection 2019.
3
Italian guidelines on the assessment and management of pediatric head injury in the emergency department.
意大利关于在急诊部门评估和管理儿科头部损伤的指南。
Ital J Pediatr. 2018 Jan 15;44(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s13052-017-0442-0.
4
Clinical Practice Experiences in Diagnosis and Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury in Children: A Survey among Clinicians at 9 Large Hospitals in China.儿童创伤性脑损伤诊治的临床实践经验:中国9家大型医院临床医生的调查
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 13;10(11):e0142983. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142983. eCollection 2015.
5
A systematic review of studies comparing diagnostic clinical prediction rules with clinical judgment.比较诊断临床预测规则与临床判断的研究的系统评价。
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 3;10(6):e0128233. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128233. eCollection 2015.
6
A prospective observational study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of clinical decision rules for children presenting to emergency departments after head injuries (protocol): the Australasian Paediatric Head Injury Rules Study (APHIRST).一项前瞻性观察性研究,旨在评估临床决策规则在儿童头部受伤后就诊急诊科时的诊断准确性(方案):澳大利亚儿科头部损伤规则研究(APHIRST)。
BMC Pediatr. 2014 Jun 13;14:148. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-14-148.