Collins Sean P, Lindsell Christopher J, Yealy Donald M, Maron David J, Naftilan Allen J, McPherson John A, Storrow Alan B
Department of Emergency Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37232, USA.
Congest Heart Fail. 2012 Sep-Oct;18(5):262-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7133.2012.00288.x. Epub 2012 Apr 4.
The authors sought to compare and contrast the clinical criterion standards currently used in a cohort of emergency department (ED) patients to diagnose acute heart failure syndromes (AHFS). In a prospective observational study of patients with signs and symptoms of AHFS, 3 criterion standards were examined: (1) the treating ED physician's diagnosis; (2) the hospital discharge diagnosis; and (3) a diagnosis based on medical record review by a panel of cardiologists. Using Cohen's kappa (κ) coefficient, the authors assessed agreement and then compared the different standards by repeatedly setting one as the criterion standard and the other two as index tests. A total of 483 patients were enrolled. Across all criterion standards, patients with AHFS were more likely to have a history of AHFS, congestion on physical examination and chest radiography, and elevated natriuretic peptide levels than those without AHFS. The standards agreed well (cardiology review vs hospital discharge diagnosis, κ=0.74; cardiology review vs ED diagnosis, κ=0.66; ED diagnosis vs hospital discharge diagnosis κ=0.59). Each method had similar sensitivity but differing specificities. Different criterion standards identify different patients from among those being evaluated for AHFS. Researchers should consider this when choosing between the various criterion standard approaches when evaluating new index tests.
作者试图比较和对比目前在一组急诊科(ED)患者中用于诊断急性心力衰竭综合征(AHFS)的临床标准。在一项对有AHFS体征和症状患者的前瞻性观察研究中,检查了3种标准:(1)急诊科主治医生的诊断;(2)医院出院诊断;(3)由一组心脏病专家根据病历审查做出的诊断。作者使用科恩kappa(κ)系数评估一致性,然后通过反复将其中一个设定为标准标准,将另外两个设定为指标测试来比较不同的标准。共纳入483例患者。在所有标准中,与无AHFS的患者相比,AHFS患者更可能有AHFS病史、体格检查和胸部X线检查显示充血以及利钠肽水平升高。这些标准一致性良好(心脏病专家审查与医院出院诊断,κ = 0.74;心脏病专家审查与急诊科诊断,κ = 0.66;急诊科诊断与医院出院诊断,κ = 0.59)。每种方法具有相似的敏感性,但特异性不同。不同的标准在接受AHFS评估的患者中识别出不同的患者。研究人员在评估新的指标测试时,在选择各种标准方法之间应考虑到这一点。