• 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

临床医生与研究助理在TIMI评分计算(分诊CPU)方面的差异。

Discrepancy between clinician and research assistant in TIMI score calculation (TRIAGED CPU).

作者信息

Taylor Brian T, Mancini Michelino

机构信息

Lakeland HealthCare, Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Joseph MI, Department of Emergency Medicine, Saint Joseph, Michigan.

出版信息

West J Emerg Med. 2015 Jan;16(1):24-33. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2014.9.21685. Epub 2014 Nov 11.

DOI:10.5811/westjem.2014.9.21685
PMID:25671004
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4307721/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Several studies have attempted to demonstrate that the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) risk score has the ability to risk stratify emergency department (ED) patients with potential acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Most of the studies we reviewed relied on trained research investigators to determine TIMI risk scores rather than ED providers functioning in their normal work capacity. We assessed whether TIMI risk scores obtained by ED providers in the setting of a busy ED differed from those obtained by trained research investigators.

METHODS

This was an ED-based prospective observational cohort study comparing TIMI scores obtained by 49 ED providers admitting patients to an ED chest pain unit (CPU) to scores generated by a team of trained research investigators. We examined provider type, patient gender, and TIMI elements for their effects on TIMI risk score discrepancy.

RESULTS

Of the 501 adult patients enrolled in the study, 29.3% of TIMI risk scores determined by ED providers and trained research investigators were generated using identical TIMI risk score variables. In our low-risk population the majority of TIMI risk score differences were small; however, 12% of TIMI risk scores differed by two or more points.

CONCLUSION

TIMI risk scores determined by ED providers in the setting of a busy ED frequently differ from scores generated by trained research investigators who complete them while not under the same pressure of an ED provider.

摘要

引言

多项研究试图证明心肌梗死溶栓(TIMI)风险评分能够对急诊科(ED)中疑似急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)的患者进行风险分层。我们回顾的大多数研究依赖于经过培训的研究人员来确定TIMI风险评分,而非以正常工作状态的急诊科医护人员。我们评估了在繁忙急诊科环境中,急诊科医护人员得出的TIMI风险评分与经过培训的研究人员得出的评分是否存在差异。

方法

这是一项基于急诊科的前瞻性观察性队列研究,比较了49名负责收治患者到急诊科胸痛单元(CPU)的急诊科医护人员得出的TIMI评分与一组经过培训的研究人员得出的评分。我们研究了医护人员类型、患者性别和TIMI各项因素对TIMI风险评分差异的影响。

结果

在纳入研究的501例成年患者中,急诊科医护人员和经过培训的研究人员确定的TIMI风险评分中,有29.3%是使用相同的TIMI风险评分变量得出的。在我们的低风险人群中,大多数TIMI风险评分差异较小;然而,12%的TIMI风险评分相差两分或更多。

结论

在繁忙急诊科环境中,急诊科医护人员确定的TIMI风险评分常常不同于由经过培训的研究人员得出的评分,后者在完成评分时没有面临急诊科医护人员所承受的相同压力。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/994f/4307721/ff3227e81de2/wjem-16-24-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/994f/4307721/bc000b063627/wjem-16-24-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/994f/4307721/ff3227e81de2/wjem-16-24-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/994f/4307721/bc000b063627/wjem-16-24-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/994f/4307721/ff3227e81de2/wjem-16-24-g002.jpg

相似文献

1
Discrepancy between clinician and research assistant in TIMI score calculation (TRIAGED CPU).临床医生与研究助理在TIMI评分计算(分诊CPU)方面的差异。
West J Emerg Med. 2015 Jan;16(1):24-33. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2014.9.21685. Epub 2014 Nov 11.
2
Prospective validation of a modified thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score in emergency department patients with chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome.前瞻性验证改良的心肌梗死溶栓治疗风险评分在急诊科胸痛且可能为急性冠脉综合征患者中的应用。
Acad Emerg Med. 2010 Apr;17(4):368-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00696.x.
3
Relation between thrombolysis in myocardial infarction risk score and one-year outcomes for patients presenting at the emergency department with potential acute coronary syndrome.急性心肌梗死溶栓治疗风险评分与以潜在急性冠脉综合征就诊于急诊科患者的一年预后的关系。
Am J Cardiol. 2010 Feb 15;105(4):441-4. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.10.015. Epub 2010 Jan 5.
4
Chest pain presenting to the Emergency Department--to stratify risk with GRACE or TIMI?因胸痛就诊于急诊科——采用GRACE评分还是TIMI评分来分层风险?
Resuscitation. 2007 Jul;74(1):90-3. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.11.023. Epub 2007 Mar 13.
5
Prospective validation of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Risk Score in the emergency department chest pain population.急诊科胸痛患者中心肌梗死溶栓风险评分的前瞻性验证
Ann Emerg Med. 2006 Sep;48(3):252-9. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.01.032. Epub 2006 Mar 20.
6
HEART score to further risk stratify patients with low TIMI scores.HEART评分用于对TIMI评分低的患者进行进一步的风险分层。
Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2013 Mar;12(1):1-5. doi: 10.1097/HPC.0b013e31827377e1.
7
Comparison of cardiac risk scores in ED patients with potential acute coronary syndrome.急诊科潜在急性冠状动脉综合征患者心脏风险评分的比较。
Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2011 Jun;10(2):64-8. doi: 10.1097/HPC.0b013e31821c79bd.
8
Inaccuracy of Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction and Global Registry in Acute Coronary Events scores in predicting outcome in ED patients with potential ischemic chest pain.心肌梗死溶栓治疗评分及急性冠状动脉事件全球注册研究评分在预测急诊科潜在缺血性胸痛患者预后中的准确性
Am J Emerg Med. 2015 Sep;33(9):1209-12. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2015.05.019. Epub 2015 May 29.
9
Combining Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction risk score and clear-cut alternative diagnosis for chest pain risk stratification.结合心肌梗死溶栓风险评分和明确的胸痛替代诊断进行风险分层。
Am J Emerg Med. 2009 Jan;27(1):37-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2008.01.028.
10
Modified TIMI risk score cannot be used to identify low-risk chest pain in the emergency department: a multicentre validation study.改良的心肌梗死溶栓治疗(TIMI)风险评分不能用于识别急诊科的低风险胸痛:一项多中心验证研究。
Emerg Med J. 2014 Apr;31(4):281-5. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2012-201323. Epub 2013 Apr 10.

引用本文的文献

1
A New Risk Score for Patients With Acute Chest Pain and Normal High Sensitivity Troponin.一种用于急性胸痛且高敏肌钙蛋白正常患者的新风险评分
Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Jan 4;8:728339. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.728339. eCollection 2021.
2
A Prospective Evaluation of Clinical HEART Score Agreement, Accuracy, and Adherence in Emergency Department Chest Pain Patients.前瞻性评估急诊胸痛患者临床 HEART 评分的一致性、准确性和依从性。
Ann Emerg Med. 2021 Aug;78(2):231-241. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2021.03.024. Epub 2021 Jun 18.
3
Secondary analysis of frequency, circumstances and consequences of calculation errors of the HEART (history, ECG, age, risk factors and troponin) score at the emergency departments of nine hospitals in the Netherlands.

本文引用的文献

1
Acute stress impairs recall after interference in older people, but not in young people.急性应激会损害老年人在干扰后回忆,但不会影响年轻人。
Horm Behav. 2014 Mar;65(3):264-72. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2013.12.017. Epub 2014 Jan 7.
2
Impairments of spatial working memory and attention following acute psychosocial stress.急性心理社会应激后空间工作记忆和注意力的损害。
Stress Health. 2015 Apr;31(2):115-23. doi: 10.1002/smi.2533. Epub 2014 Jan 3.
3
The use of family history in primary health care: a qualitative study.家族史在初级卫生保健中的应用:一项定性研究。
对荷兰九家医院急诊科HEART(病史、心电图、年龄、危险因素和肌钙蛋白)评分计算错误的频率、情况及后果进行二次分析。
BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 22;7(10):e017259. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017259.
Adv Prev Med. 2013;2013:695763. doi: 10.1155/2013/695763. Epub 2013 Jul 14.
4
Prospective evaluation of the use of the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction score as a risk stratification tool for chest pain patients admitted to an ED observation unit.前瞻性评估心肌梗死溶栓评分作为胸痛患者收入 ED 观察单元的风险分层工具的应用。
Am J Emerg Med. 2013 Jan;31(1):185-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.07.006. Epub 2012 Sep 1.
5
2012 ACCF/AHA focused update of the guideline for the management of patients with unstable angina/Non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (updating the 2007 guideline and replacing the 2011 focused update): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines.2012年美国心脏病学会基金会/美国心脏协会实践指南工作组对不稳定型心绞痛/非ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者管理指南的聚焦更新(更新2007年指南并取代2011年聚焦更新):美国心脏病学会基金会/美国心脏协会实践指南工作组报告
Circulation. 2012 Aug 14;126(7):875-910. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e318256f1e0. Epub 2012 Jul 16.
6
ACCF/SCAI/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2012 appropriate use criteria for diagnostic catheterization: American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions American Association for Thoracic Surgery American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Heart Failure Society of America Heart Rhythm Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Society of Thoracic Surgeons.ACCF/SCAI/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR/STS 2012 诊断性导管插入术适用标准:美国心脏病学会基金会适当使用标准工作组,心血管血管造影和介入学会,美国胸外科学会,美国心脏协会,美国超声心动图学会,美国核医学学会,美国心力衰竭学会,心律学会,重症监护医学学会,心血管计算机断层扫描学会,心血管磁共振学会,胸外科医师学会。
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012 Sep 1;80(3):E50-81. doi: 10.1002/ccd.24467. Epub 2012 Jun 7.
7
A new improved accelerated diagnostic protocol safely identifies low-risk patients with chest pain in the emergency department.一种新的改进型加速诊断方案可在急诊科安全地识别出低风险胸痛患者。
Acad Emerg Med. 2012 May;19(5):510-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2012.01352.x.
8
Comparison of two clinical scoring systems for emergency department risk stratification of suspected acute coronary syndrome.比较两种用于急诊科疑似急性冠脉综合征风险分层的临床评分系统。
Emerg Med Australas. 2011 Dec;23(6):717-25. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2011.01480.x. Epub 2011 Aug 30.
9
A Novel Risk Stratification Model for Patients with Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR): Limitation of the TIMI Risk Scoring System.韩国急性心肌梗死注册研究(KAMIR)中用于非ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者的新型风险分层模型:TIMI风险评分系统的局限性
Chonnam Med J. 2011 Apr;47(1):20-6. doi: 10.4068/cmj.2011.47.1.20. Epub 2011 Apr 26.
10
Comparison of cardiac risk scores in ED patients with potential acute coronary syndrome.急诊科潜在急性冠状动脉综合征患者心脏风险评分的比较。
Crit Pathw Cardiol. 2011 Jun;10(2):64-8. doi: 10.1097/HPC.0b013e31821c79bd.