• 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

NEXUS II 头部损伤决策规则在儿童中的准确性:一项前瞻性 PREDICT 队列研究。

Accuracy of NEXUS II head injury decision rule in children: a prospective PREDICT cohort study.

机构信息

Emergency Department, Royal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.

出版信息

Emerg Med J. 2019 Jan;36(1):4-11. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2017-207435. Epub 2018 Aug 20.

DOI:10.1136/emermed-2017-207435
PMID:30127072
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The National Emergency X-Radiography Utilisation Study II (NEXUS II) clinical decision rule (CDR) can be used to optimise the use of CT in children with head trauma. We set out to externally validate this CDR in a large cohort.

METHODS

We performed a prospective observational study of patients aged <18 years presenting with head trauma of any severity to 10 Australian/New Zealand EDs. In a planned secondary analysis, we assessed the accuracy of the NEXUS II CDR (with 95% CI) to detect clinically important intracranial injury (ICI). We also assessed clinician accuracy without the rule.

RESULTS

Of 20 137 total patients, we excluded 28 with suspected penetrating injury. Median age was 4.2 years. CTs were obtained in ED for 1962 (9.8%), of whom 377 (19.2%) had ICI as defined by NEXUS II. 74 (19.6% of ICI) patients underwent neurosurgery.Sensitivity for ICI based on the NEXUS II CDR was 379/383 (99.0 (95% CI 97.3% to 99.7%)) and specificity was 9320/19 726 (47.2% (95% CI 46.5% to 47.9%)) for the total cohort. Sensitivity in the CT-only cohort was similar. Of the 18 022 children without CT in ED, 49.4% had at least one NEXUS II risk criterion. Sensitivity for ICI by the clinicians without the rule was 377/377 (100.0% (95% CI 99.0% to 100.0%)) and specificity was 18 147/19 732 (92.0% (95% CI 91.6% to 92.3%)).

CONCLUSIONS

NEXUS II had high sensitivity, similar to the derivation study. However, approximately half of unimaged patients were positive for NEXUS II risk criteria; this may result in an increased CT rate in a setting with high clinician accuracy.

摘要

目的

国家紧急放射学利用研究 II(NEXUS II)临床决策规则(CDR)可用于优化儿童头部创伤 CT 的使用。我们旨在对该 CDR 在大型队列中进行外部验证。

方法

我们对澳大利亚/新西兰 10 家急诊室就诊的任何严重程度的头部创伤的<18 岁患者进行了前瞻性观察研究。在计划的二次分析中,我们评估了 NEXUS II CDR(95%CI)检测临床重要性颅内损伤(ICI)的准确性。我们还评估了没有规则的临床医生的准确性。

结果

在 20137 名总患者中,我们排除了 28 例疑似穿透性损伤的患者。中位年龄为 4.2 岁。在 ED 中进行了 1962 次 CT 检查,其中 377 次(19.2%)根据 NEXUS II 定义有 ICI。74 例(ICI 的 19.6%)患者接受了神经外科手术。基于 NEXUS II CDR 的 ICI 敏感性为 379/383(99.0(95%CI 97.3%至 99.7%)),特异性为 9320/19726(47.2%(95%CI 46.5%至 47.9%))。在仅进行 CT 的队列中,敏感性相似。在 ED 中未进行 CT 的 18022 名儿童中,49.4%至少有一个 NEXUS II 风险标准。没有规则的临床医生检测 ICI 的敏感性为 377/377(100.0%(95%CI 99.0%至 100.0%)),特异性为 18147/19732(92.0%(95%CI 91.6%至 92.3%))。

结论

NEXUS II 具有较高的敏感性,与推导研究相似。然而,大约一半未成像的患者对 NEXUS II 风险标准呈阳性;这可能会导致在具有高临床医生准确性的环境中 CT 率增加。

相似文献

1
Accuracy of NEXUS II head injury decision rule in children: a prospective PREDICT cohort study.NEXUS II 头部损伤决策规则在儿童中的准确性:一项前瞻性 PREDICT 队列研究。
Emerg Med J. 2019 Jan;36(1):4-11. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2017-207435. Epub 2018 Aug 20.
2
Performance of a decision rule to predict need for computed tomography among children with blunt head trauma.一种预测钝性头部创伤儿童是否需要进行计算机断层扫描的决策规则的性能。
Pediatrics. 2006 Feb;117(2):e238-46. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-1063. Epub 2006 Jan 17.
3
Validation of the sensitivity of the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) Head computed tomographic (CT) decision instrument for selective imaging of blunt head injury patients: An observational study.国家急诊X线摄影应用研究(NEXUS)头部计算机断层扫描(CT)决策工具对钝性头部损伤患者进行选择性成像的敏感性验证:一项观察性研究。
PLoS Med. 2017 Jul 11;14(7):e1002313. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002313. eCollection 2017 Jul.
4
Comparison of clinical performance of cranial computed tomography rules in patients with minor head injury: a multicenter prospective study.颅脑 CT 规则在轻型颅脑损伤患者临床应用中的比较:多中心前瞻性研究。
Acad Emerg Med. 2011 Jun;18(6):597-604. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01094.x.
5
External validation of the New Orleans Criteria (NOC), the Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study II (NEXUS II) for CT scanning in pediatric patients with minor head injury in a non-trauma center.在非创伤中心对儿童轻度头部外伤患者进行 CT 扫描时,对新奥尔良标准(NOC)、加拿大 CT 头部规则(CCHR)和国家急诊 X 射线利用研究 II(NEXUS II)进行外部验证。
Pediatr Radiol. 2011 Aug;41(8):971-9. doi: 10.1007/s00247-011-2032-4. Epub 2011 Apr 5.
6
Accuracy of Clinician Practice Compared With Three Head Injury Decision Rules in Children: A Prospective Cohort Study.临床医生实践与三种头部损伤决策规则在儿童中的准确性比较:一项前瞻性队列研究。
Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Jun;71(6):703-710. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.01.015. Epub 2018 Feb 14.
7
Accuracy of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE head injury decision rules in children: a prospective cohort study.PECARN、CATCH 和 CHALICE 头部损伤决策规则在儿童中的准确性:一项前瞻性队列研究。
Lancet. 2017 Jun 17;389(10087):2393-2402. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30555-X. Epub 2017 Apr 11.
8
A prospective observational study to assess the diagnostic accuracy of clinical decision rules for children presenting to emergency departments after head injuries (protocol): the Australasian Paediatric Head Injury Rules Study (APHIRST).一项前瞻性观察性研究,旨在评估临床决策规则在儿童头部受伤后就诊急诊科时的诊断准确性(方案):澳大利亚儿科头部损伤规则研究(APHIRST)。
BMC Pediatr. 2014 Jun 13;14:148. doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-14-148.
9
Comparison of Prediction Rules and Clinician Suspicion for Identifying Children With Clinically Important Brain Injuries After Blunt Head Trauma.钝性头部创伤后识别具有临床重要性脑损伤儿童的预测规则与临床医生怀疑程度的比较
Acad Emerg Med. 2016 May;23(5):566-75. doi: 10.1111/acem.12923. Epub 2016 Apr 20.
10
Comparison of quantitative EEG to current clinical decision rules for head CT use in acute mild traumatic brain injury in the ED.急诊科急性轻度创伤性脑损伤中定量脑电图与当前头部CT使用临床决策规则的比较。
Am J Emerg Med. 2015 Apr;33(4):493-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.11.015. Epub 2014 Nov 20.