• 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

评分系统在识别有症状结直肠癌方面的诊断性能与当前转诊指南的比较。

The diagnostic performance of scoring systems to identify symptomatic colorectal cancer compared to current referral guidance.

机构信息

Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.

出版信息

Gut. 2011 Sep;60(9):1242-8. doi: 10.1136/gut.2010.225987. Epub 2011 Feb 25.

DOI:10.1136/gut.2010.225987
PMID:21357592
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To determine the discrimination characteristics of a new algorithm and two existing symptom scoring systems for identification of patients with suspected colorectal cancer.

DESIGN

Derivation of algorithm by a case-control study and assessment of discrimination characteristics using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. Three colorectal cancer scoring systems were investigated. The Bristol-Birmingham (BB) equation, which we derived from a large primary care dataset; the CAPER score, previously derived from a primary care case-control study and a symptom score derived from National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance for urgent referral of symptomatic patients. Their discrimination characteristics were investigated in two datasets: the BB derivation dataset and the CAPER score derivation dataset. The main analyses were ROC curves and the areas under them for all three algorithms in both datasets. Setting Electronic primary care databases. Main outcome measures Diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

RESULTS

In the BB dataset, areas under the curve were: BB equation 0.83 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.84); CAPER 0.79 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.80); the NICE guidelines 0.65 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.66). In the CAPER dataset, areas under the curve were: BB 0.92 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.94); CAPER 0.91 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.93); NICE guidelines 0.75 (95% CI 0.72 to 0.79). In subjects under 50 the discrimination characteristics of NICE referral guidelines were no better than chance.

CONCLUSIONS

Both multivariable symptom scoring systems performed significantly better than NICE referral guidelines.

摘要

目的

确定一种新算法和两种现有的症状评分系统对疑似结直肠癌患者的鉴别特征。

设计

通过病例对照研究得出算法,并使用接收者操作特征(ROC)曲线评估鉴别特征。研究了三种结直肠癌评分系统。Bristol-Birmingham(BB)方程是我们从大型初级保健数据库中得出的;CAPER 评分是从初级保健病例对照研究和国民健康保险制度(NICE)对有症状患者紧急转诊的指导方针中得出的症状评分。在两个数据集(BB 推导数据集和 CAPER 评分推导数据集)中研究了它们的鉴别特征。主要分析是所有三个算法在两个数据集的 ROC 曲线和它们下面的面积。

设置

电子初级保健数据库。

主要结局指标

结直肠癌的诊断。

结果

在 BB 数据集,曲线下面积为:BB 方程 0.83(95%CI 0.82 至 0.84);CAPER 0.79(95%CI 0.79 至 0.80);NICE 指南 0.65(95%CI 0.64 至 0.66)。在 CAPER 数据集,曲线下面积为:BB 0.92(95%CI 0.91 至 0.94);CAPER 0.91(95%CI 0.89 至 0.93);NICE 指南 0.75(95%CI 0.72 至 0.79)。在 50 岁以下的患者中,NICE 转诊指南的鉴别特征并不优于机会。

结论

两种多变量症状评分系统的性能明显优于 NICE 转诊指南。

相似文献

1
The diagnostic performance of scoring systems to identify symptomatic colorectal cancer compared to current referral guidance.评分系统在识别有症状结直肠癌方面的诊断性能与当前转诊指南的比较。
Gut. 2011 Sep;60(9):1242-8. doi: 10.1136/gut.2010.225987. Epub 2011 Feb 25.
2
Use of a patient consultation questionnaire and weighted numerical scoring system for the prediction of colorectal cancer and other colorectal pathology in symptomatic patients: a prospective cohort validation study of a Welsh population.使用患者咨询问卷和加权数字评分系统预测有症状患者的结直肠癌和其他结直肠病变:一项针对威尔士人群的前瞻性队列验证研究。
Colorectal Dis. 2010 May;12(5):407-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01984.x. Epub 2009 Jun 30.
3
Pitfalls in the construction of cancer guidelines demonstrated by the analyses of colorectal referrals.通过对结直肠癌转诊病例的分析揭示癌症指南制定中的陷阱。
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2005 Nov;87(6):419-26. doi: 10.1308/003588405X71018.
4
Referral guidelines for colorectal cancer--do they work?结直肠癌转诊指南——它们有效吗?
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2003 Mar;85(2):107-10. doi: 10.1308/003588403321219885.
5
The influence of NICE guidance on the uptake of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.NICE 指南对结直肠癌腹腔镜手术应用的影响。
J Public Health (Oxf). 2009 Dec;31(4):541-5. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdp027. Epub 2009 Mar 25.
6
Predicting colorectal cancer risk in patients with rectal bleeding.预测直肠出血患者患结直肠癌的风险。
Br J Gen Pract. 2006 Oct;56(531):763-7.
7
Variations in the evaluation of colorectal cancer risk.结直肠癌风险评估的差异。
Colorectal Dis. 2005 May;7(3):254-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2005.00771.x.
8
Assessment of a patient consultation questionnaire-based scoring system for stratification of outpatient risk of colorectal cancer.基于患者咨询问卷的评分系统对结直肠癌门诊患者风险分层的评估。
Br J Surg. 2008 Mar;95(3):369-74. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5981.
9
Clinical features of colorectal cancer before emergency presentation: a population-based case-control study.急诊就诊前结直肠癌的临床特征:一项基于人群的病例对照研究。
Fam Pract. 2007 Feb;24(1):3-6. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cml059. Epub 2006 Nov 30.
10
Is anaemia relevant in the referral and diagnosis of colorectal cancer?贫血与结直肠癌的转诊和诊断是否相关?
Colorectal Dis. 2007 Oct;9(8):736-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2006.01200.x.

引用本文的文献

1
A machine learning tool for identifying metastatic colorectal cancer in primary care.一种用于在基层医疗中识别转移性结直肠癌的机器学习工具。
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2025 Mar 13:1-9. doi: 10.1080/02813432.2025.2477155.
2
Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Value-Based Algorithm to Triage Symptomatic Colorectal Patients: A Retrospective Study From a Tertiary Care Hospital.基于粪便免疫化学检测(FIT)值的算法对有症状的结直肠癌患者进行分诊:一项来自三级医院的回顾性研究
Cureus. 2024 Sep 21;16(9):e69889. doi: 10.7759/cureus.69889. eCollection 2024 Sep.
3
The performance of FIT-based and other risk prediction models for colorectal neoplasia in symptomatic patients: a systematic review.
有症状患者中基于粪便免疫化学检测(FIT)及其他结直肠肿瘤风险预测模型的性能:一项系统评价
EClinicalMedicine. 2023 Sep 21;64:102204. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102204. eCollection 2023 Oct.
4
Development and Validation of Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer in Patients with Symptoms.有症状患者结直肠癌风险预测模型的开发与验证
J Pers Med. 2023 Jun 29;13(7):1065. doi: 10.3390/jpm13071065.
5
Early detection of colorectal cancer by leveraging Dutch primary care consultation notes with free text embeddings.利用具有自由文本嵌入功能的荷兰初级保健咨询记录进行结直肠癌的早期检测。
Sci Rep. 2023 Jul 4;13(1):10760. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-37397-2.
6
Validation of a diagnostic prediction tool for colorectal cancer: a case-control replication study.验证结直肠癌诊断预测工具的有效性:一项病例对照复制研究。
Fam Pract. 2023 Dec 22;40(5-6):844-851. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmac147.
7
Multivariable models for advanced colorectal neoplasms in screen-eligible individuals at low-to-moderate risk of colorectal cancer: towards improving colonoscopy prioritization.可用于结直肠癌低至中度筛查风险个体中筛选出有进展性结直肠肿瘤的多变量模型:旨在改善结肠镜检查的优先级。
BMC Gastroenterol. 2021 Oct 18;21(1):383. doi: 10.1186/s12876-021-01965-5.
8
The EPAGE guidelines are not an effective strategy for managing colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic.EPAGE 指南并非 COVID-19 大流行期间管理结肠镜检查的有效策略。
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 Jan;45(1):9-17. doi: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2020.11.020. Epub 2021 Feb 2.
9
Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis.癌症诊断工具辅助初级保健决策:混合方法系统评价和成本效益分析。
Health Technol Assess. 2020 Nov;24(66):1-332. doi: 10.3310/hta24660.
10
Development, validation and effectiveness of diagnostic prediction tools for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review.基层医疗中用于结直肠癌诊断预测工具的开发、验证和有效性:系统评价。
BMC Cancer. 2020 Nov 10;20(1):1084. doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07572-z.