Serrano Luis A, Hess Erik P, Bellolio M Fernanda, Murad Mohammed H, Montori Victor M, Erwin Patricia J, Decker Wyatt W
Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2010 Oct;56(4):362-373.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.05.013.
We assess the methodological quality and prognostic accuracy of clinical decision rules in emergency department (ED) syncope patients.
We searched 6 electronic databases, reviewed reference lists of included studies, and contacted content experts to identify articles for review. Studies that derived or validated clinical decision rules in ED syncope patients were included. Two reviewers independently screened records for relevance, selected studies for inclusion, assessed study quality, and abstracted data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool diagnostic performance estimates across studies that derived or validated the same clinical decision rule. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed with the I(2) statistic, and subgroup hypotheses were tested with a test of interaction.
We identified 18 eligible studies. Deficiencies in outcome (blinding) and interrater reliability assessment were the most common methodological weaknesses. Meta-analysis of the San Francisco Syncope Rule (sensitivity 86% [95% confidence interval {CI} 83% to 89%]; specificity 49% [95% CI 48% to 51%]) and the Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio risk score (sensitivity 95% [95% CI 88% to 98%]; specificity 31% [95% CI 29% to 34%]). Subgroup analysis identified study design (prospective, diagnostic odds ratio 8.82 [95% CI 3.5 to 22] versus retrospective, diagnostic odds ratio 2.45 [95% CI 0.96 to 6.21]) and ECG determination (by evaluating physician, diagnostic odds ratio 25.5 [95% CI 4.41 to 148] versus researcher or cardiologist, diagnostic odds ratio 4 [95% CI 2.15 to 7.55]) as potential explanations for the variability in San Francisco Syncope Rule performance.
The methodological quality and prognostic accuracy of clinical decision rules for syncope are limited. Differences in study design and ECG interpretation may account for the variable prognostic performance of the San Francisco Syncope Rule when validated in different practice settings.
我们评估急诊科(ED)晕厥患者临床决策规则的方法学质量和预后准确性。
我们检索了6个电子数据库,查阅纳入研究的参考文献列表,并联系内容专家以确定需审查的文章。纳入那些推导或验证了ED晕厥患者临床决策规则的研究。两名审查员独立筛选记录的相关性,选择纳入研究,评估研究质量,并提取数据。采用随机效应荟萃分析汇总推导或验证相同临床决策规则的各项研究的诊断性能估计值。采用I(2)统计量评估研究间的异质性,并用交互检验对亚组假设进行检验。
我们确定了18项符合条件的研究。结果(盲法)和评估者间可靠性评估方面的缺陷是最常见的方法学弱点。对旧金山晕厥规则进行荟萃分析(敏感性86%[95%置信区间{CI}83%至89%];特异性49%[95%CI48%至51%])以及拉齐奥晕厥流行病学观察风险评分(敏感性95%[95%CI88%至98%];特异性31%[95%CI29%至34%])。亚组分析确定研究设计(前瞻性,诊断比值比8.82[95%CI3.5至22]与回顾性,诊断比值比2.45[95%CI0.96至6.21])和心电图判定(由评估医师进行,诊断比值比25.5[95%CI4.41至148]与由研究人员或心脏病专家进行,诊断比值比4[95%CI2.15至7.55])是旧金山晕厥规则在不同实践环境中验证时性能变异性的潜在解释。
晕厥临床决策规则的方法学质量和预后准确性有限。研究设计和心电图解读的差异可能是旧金山晕厥规则在不同实践环境中验证时预后性能各异的原因。