Suppr超能文献

急诊科评估后肾绞痛患者干预风险预测模型的验证失败。

Failed validation of risk prediction model for intervention in renal colic patients after emergency department evaluation.

作者信息

Dean Tanya, Crozier Jack, Klim Sharon, Kelly Anne-Maree

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Western Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Western Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

出版信息

ANZ J Surg. 2016 Nov;86(11):930-933. doi: 10.1111/ans.13109. Epub 2015 Apr 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

It has been reported that three criteria (size of calculus ≥6 mm, visual analogue scale pain score at discharge ≥2 cm and location above mid-ureter; the Papa criteria) were sensitive for predicting patients who require intervention (surgery or lithotripsy) within 28 days of index emergency department (ED) visit for ureteric colic. It was suggested that absence of these criteria identified a group for whom early follow-up may not be needed. No validation has been reported. We aimed to validate these criteria.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients with clinical presentation of ureteric colic and radiologically proven renal tract stones. Data collected included demographics, clinical features, features of the stone, imaging results and 28-day outcome. Outcome of interest was performance of the Papa criteria for prediction of urological intervention by clinical performance analysis. We also undertook a post hoc analysis to identify predictors of urological intervention for the group overall and for the subgroup discharged from ED.

RESULTS

Two hundred and twenty-four patients were studied (median age 49, 79% male) with 75 (33%) requiring urological intervention within 28 days. The presence of any of the Papa criteria had sensitivity for urological intervention of 83.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 71.2-91.9%) with specificity of 47.7% (95% CI 38.9-56.6%), positive predictive value of 40.9% (95% CI 31.9-50.4%) and negative predictive value of 87.3% (95% CI 76.8-93.7%). Nine patients with no Papa criteria had intervention: 12.7% (95% CI 6.8-22.4%).

CONCLUSION

The Papa criteria are not sufficiently accurate to determine which patients require intervention or a subgroup who do not need specialist urological follow-up.

摘要

背景

据报道,三项标准(结石大小≥6毫米、出院时视觉模拟评分疼痛得分≥2厘米以及位于输尿管中段上方;帕帕标准)对于预测在输尿管绞痛首次急诊科就诊后28天内需要干预(手术或碎石术)的患者具有敏感性。有人提出,不存在这些标准可确定一个可能不需要早期随访的群体。尚未有关于这些标准验证的报道。我们旨在验证这些标准。

方法

对输尿管绞痛临床表现且经放射学证实有尿路结石的患者进行回顾性队列研究。收集的数据包括人口统计学、临床特征、结石特征、影像学结果和28天的结局。感兴趣的结局是通过临床性能分析评估帕帕标准对泌尿外科干预的预测性能。我们还进行了事后分析,以确定总体组和从急诊科出院的亚组中泌尿外科干预的预测因素。

结果

共研究了224例患者(中位年龄49岁,79%为男性),其中75例(33%)在28天内需要泌尿外科干预。任何一项帕帕标准对泌尿外科干预的敏感性为83.9%(95%置信区间[CI]71.2 - 91.9%),特异性为47.7%(95%CI 38.9 - 56.6%),阳性预测值为40.9%(95%CI 31.9 - 50.4%),阴性预测值为87.3%(95%CI 76.8 - 93.7%)。9例无帕帕标准的患者接受了干预:12.7%(95%CI 6.8 - 22.4%)。

结论

帕帕标准不够准确,无法确定哪些患者需要干预或哪些亚组患者不需要泌尿外科专科随访。

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