跌倒风险筛查工具预测结果失败：一项前瞻性队列研究。
Failure of falls risk screening tools to predict outcome: a prospective cohort study.
机构信息
Occupational Therapy Department, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Australia.
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
出版信息
Emerg Med J. 2018 Jan;35(1):28-32. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2016-206233. Epub 2017 Jun 22.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the Falls Risk for Older Persons-Community Setting Screening Tool (FROP Com Screen) with the Two-Item Screening Tool in older adults presenting to the ED.
METHODS
A prospective cohort study, comparing the efficacy of the two falls risk assessment tools by applying them simultaneously in a sample of hospital ED presentations.
RESULTS
Two hundred and one patients over 65 years old were recruited. Thirty-six per cent reported falls in the 6-month follow-up period. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.57 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.66) for the FROP Com Screen and 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.63) for the Two-Item Screening Tool. FROP Com Screen had a sensitivity of 39% (95% CI 0.27 to 0.51) and a specificity of 70% (95% CI 0.61 to 0.78), while the Two-Item Screening Tool had a sensitivity of 48% (95% CI 0.36 to 0.60) and a specificity of 57% (95% CI 0.47 to 0.66).
CONCLUSION
Both tools have limited predictive ability in the ED setting.
目的
比较社区环境下老年人跌倒风险筛查工具（FROP Com Screen）与二项式筛查工具在急诊科就诊的老年人中的应用效果。
方法
前瞻性队列研究，同时应用两种跌倒风险评估工具对医院急诊科就诊患者进行评估，比较两种工具的效果。
结果
共纳入 201 名 65 岁以上的患者。6 个月随访期间，36%的患者报告发生跌倒。FROP Com Screen 的受试者工作特征曲线下面积为 0.57（95%置信区间 0.48 至 0.66），Two-Item Screening Tool 的面积为 0.54（95%置信区间 0.45 至 0.63）。FROP Com Screen 的敏感性为 39%（95%置信区间 0.27 至 0.51），特异性为 70%（95%置信区间 0.61 至 0.78），Two-Item Screening Tool 的敏感性为 48%（95%置信区间 0.36 至 0.60），特异性为 57%（95%置信区间 0.47 至 0.66）。
结论
两种工具在急诊科环境中的预测能力均有限。
Zotero 插件