Suppr超能文献

儿童死因分类

How children die: classifying child deaths.

机构信息

Paediatric Intensive Care, Birmingham Children's Hospital, Steelhouse Lane, Birmingham B4 6NH, UK.

出版信息

Arch Dis Child. 2011 Oct;96(10):922-6. doi: 10.1136/adc.2009.177089. Epub 2010 Jul 23.

Abstract

AIM

To validate a descriptive tool for the causes of child death, which was designed to circumvent problems posed by the analysis of a confidential enquiry.

METHOD

3 participants from different healthcare backgrounds used clinical data, including the entries on the medical certificate of the cause of death, to classify the root cause of 783 deaths from the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health child death review. A bespoke hierarchical system was used. Unanimity of allocation within categories and inter-rater and intra-rater agreement were assessed. Two methods for treating disagreements were compared by assessing their effect upon the apparent incidence of different causes of death.

RESULTS

The participants were most consistent in grouping deaths due to trauma, malignancy and sudden infant death. Each was highly consistent in allocating cases to groups (κ 0.85-0.99), but the agreement between participants, although "good", was worse (κ 0.66-0.78). The greatest number of discrepancies was between diseases identified as congenital by the doctor and as chronic medical conditions by others. The method for treating disagreement between participants does not affect the commonest cause of death (trauma) but alters the ranking of the subordinate causes.

CONCLUSION

Agreement within diagnostic categories might be improved by greater training of assessors in the use of the technique. This level of performance compares well with that of other coding systems upon their target groups.

摘要

目的

验证一种用于儿童死亡原因描述的工具,该工具旨在规避因分析机密调查而产生的问题。

方法

3 名来自不同医疗保健背景的参与者使用临床数据,包括死亡原因的医疗证明上的条目,对母婴健康机密调查儿童死亡审查中 783 例死亡的根本原因进行分类。使用了定制的层次系统。评估了类别内分配的一致性、评分者间和评分者内的一致性。通过评估它们对不同死亡原因的明显发生率的影响,比较了两种处理分歧的方法。

结果

参与者在将创伤、恶性肿瘤和婴儿猝死归因于特定组别时最为一致。他们在分配病例到组别的过程中都非常一致(κ0.85-0.99),但参与者之间的一致性虽然“良好”,但较差(κ0.66-0.78)。最不一致的是医生确定为先天性的疾病和其他人确定为慢性疾病之间的差异。处理参与者之间分歧的方法不会影响最常见的死因(创伤),但会改变次要原因的排名。

结论

通过更多地培训评估者使用该技术,类别内的诊断一致性可能会得到提高。这种水平的性能与其他针对特定目标群体的编码系统相当。

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