Suppr超能文献

晕厥指南在急诊科晕厥风险分层中的实用性。

Usefulness of syncope guidelines in risk stratification of syncope in emergency department.

作者信息

Sruamsiri Kamphee, Chenthanakij Boriboon, Tantiwut Aphinant, Wittayachamnankul Borwon

出版信息

J Med Assoc Thai. 2014 Feb;97(2):173-8.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Management of patients with syncope in the Emergency Department now focuses on identifying patients who will be at future risk of serious morbidity. Among the risk stratification scoring systems being used were the San Francisco Syncope Rule (SFSR) and Osservatorio Epidemiologico sulla Sincope nel Lazio (OESIL) score.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the accuracy of SFSR and OESIL score at predicting short-term serious outcome in Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

In a prospective descriptive analysis study, adult patients presenting with syncope or near syncope between October 1, 2009 and April 24, 2010 were enrolled. All patients were followed-up at 7-day and 1-month. Statistical analysis included accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and likelihood ratios.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy eight patients were enrolled in the present study. Fifty-three patients had a short-term serious outcome on follow-up. SFSR had 74.7% accuracy, 90.6% sensitivity, 68% specificity, 54.5% PPV 94.4% NPV likelihood ratio positive (LR+) of 2.8, and likelihood ratio negative (LR-) of 0.1, whereas OESIL score had 80.9% accuracy, 79.4% sensitivity, 81.6% specificity, 64.6% PPV 90.3% NPV, LR+ of 4.3, and LR- of 0.2.

CONCLUSION

Both scores have good accuracy and sensitivity, but they should not be used as the only device in patient disposition. However, both scores showed a low false negative rate. Therefore, they may help in helping physician discharge low-risk patients.

摘要

背景

急诊科晕厥患者的管理目前侧重于识别未来有严重发病风险的患者。正在使用的风险分层评分系统包括旧金山晕厥规则(SFSR)和拉齐奥晕厥流行病学观察评分(OESIL)。

目的

评估SFSR和OESIL评分在清迈玛哈拉吉医院预测短期严重结局的准确性。

材料与方法

在一项前瞻性描述性分析研究中,纳入了2009年10月1日至2010年4月24日期间出现晕厥或接近晕厥的成年患者。所有患者均在7天和1个月时进行随访。统计分析包括准确性、敏感性、特异性、预测值和似然比。

结果

本研究共纳入178例患者。53例患者在随访中有短期严重结局。SFSR的准确性为74.7%,敏感性为90.6%,特异性为68%,阳性预测值(PPV)为54.5%,阴性预测值(NPV)为94.4%,阳性似然比(LR+)为2.8,阴性似然比(LR-)为0.1;而OESIL评分的准确性为80.9%,敏感性为79.4%,特异性为81.6%,PPV为64.6%,NPV为90.3%,LR+为4.3,LR-为0.2。

结论

两种评分均具有良好的准确性和敏感性,但不应将其作为患者处置的唯一依据。然而,两种评分的假阴性率均较低。因此,它们可能有助于医生让低风险患者出院。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验