Suppr超能文献

格拉斯哥入院预测评分与 Amb 评分在预测住院需求方面的比较。

Comparison of Glasgow Admission Prediction Score and Amb Score in predicting need for inpatient care.

机构信息

Acute Medicine Unit, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.

School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

出版信息

Emerg Med J. 2018 Apr;35(4):247-251. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2017-207246. Epub 2018 Feb 14.

Abstract

AIM

We compared the abilities of two established clinical scores to predict emergency department (ED) disposition: the Glasgow Admission Prediction Score (GAPS) and the Ambulatory Score (Ambs).

METHODS

The scores were compared in a prospective, multicentre cohort study. We recruited consecutive patients attending ED triage at two UK sites: Northern General Hospital in Sheffield and Glasgow Royal Infirmary, between February and May 2016. Each had a GAPS and Ambs calculated at the time of triage, with the triage nurses and treating clinicians blinded to the scores. Patients were followed up to hospital discharge. The ability of the scores to discriminate discharge from ED and from hospital at 12 and 48 hours after arrival was compared using the area under the curve (AUC) of their receiving-operator characteristics (ROC).

RESULTS

1424 triage attendances were suitable for analysis during the study period, of which 567 (39.8%) were admitted. The AUC for predicting admission was significantly higher for GAPS at 0.807 (95% CI 0.785 to 0.830), compared with 0.743 (95% CI 0.717 to 0.769) for Ambs, P<0.00001. Similar results were seen when comparing ability to predict hospital stay of >12 hour and >48 hour. GAPS was also more accurate as a binary test, correctly predicting 1057 outcomes compared with 1004 for Ambs (74.2vs70.5%, P=0.012).

CONCLUSION

The GAPS is a significantly better predictor of need for hospital admission than Ambs in an unselected ED population.

摘要

目的

我们比较了两种已建立的临床评分对预测急诊科(ED)处置的能力:格拉斯哥入院预测评分(GAPS)和门诊评分(Ambs)。

方法

该评分在一项前瞻性、多中心队列研究中进行比较。我们招募了 2016 年 2 月至 5 月期间在英国两家 ED 分诊的连续患者:谢菲尔德的北方综合医院和格拉斯哥皇家医院。每位患者在分诊时都计算了 GAPS 和 Ambs,分诊护士和治疗临床医生对评分均不知情。患者随访至出院。使用接收者操作特征(ROC)曲线下面积(AUC)比较评分在到达后 12 和 48 小时预测从 ED 出院和从医院出院的能力。

结果

在研究期间,共有 1424 次分诊就诊适合分析,其中 567 例(39.8%)入院。GAPS 预测入院的 AUC 显著高于 Ambs,为 0.807(95%CI 0.785 至 0.830),而 Ambs 为 0.743(95%CI 0.717 至 0.769),P<0.00001。当比较预测 >12 小时和 >48 小时住院时间的能力时,也观察到了类似的结果。GAPS 作为二分类试验也更准确,正确预测了 1057 例结果,而 Ambs 为 1004 例(74.2%比 70.5%,P=0.012)。

结论

在未选择的 ED 人群中,GAPS 是预测住院需求的能力明显优于 Ambs。

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