• 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

创伤生存概率模型在法医学威胁生命危险评估中的作用。

The usefulness of a trauma probability of survival model for forensic life-threatening danger assessments.

机构信息

Department of Forensic Medicine, Section of Forensic Pathology, University of Copenhagen, Frederik V's Vej 11, Copenhagen East, 2100, Denmark.

Trauma Centre & Department of Anaesthesia, HOC, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen East, 2100, Denmark.

出版信息

Int J Legal Med. 2021 May;135(3):871-877. doi: 10.1007/s00414-020-02499-3. Epub 2021 Jan 3.

DOI:10.1007/s00414-020-02499-3
PMID:33388971
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8036213/
Abstract

Clinical forensic medical examinations constitute an increasing proportion of our institution's tasks, and, concomitantly, the authorities are now requesting forensic life-threatening danger assessments based on our examinations. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess if a probability of survival (PS) trauma score could be useful for these forensic life-threatening danger assessments and to identify a cut-off PS score as a supporting tool for the forensic practice of assessing life-threatening danger. We compared a forensic database and a trauma database and identified 161 individuals (aged 15 years or older) who had both a forensic life-threatening danger assessment and a PS score. The life-threatening danger assessments comprised the following statements: was not in life-threatening danger (NLD); could have been in life-threatening danger (CLD); or was in life-threatening danger (LD). The inclusion period was 2012-2016. A statistically significant difference was found in the PS scores between NLD, CLD and LD (chi-square test: p < 0.0001). The usefulness of the PS score for categorizing life-threatening danger assessments was determined by a receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve. The area under the curve was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.84) and the ROC curve revealed that a cut-off PS score of 95.8 would appropriately identify LD. Therefore, a PS score below 95.8 would indicate life-threatening danger. We propose a further exploration of how the evidence-based PS score, including a cut-off value, might be implemented in clinical forensic medical statements to add to the scientific strength of these statements.

摘要

临床法医检查在我们机构的任务中所占比例越来越大,相应地,当局现在要求根据我们的检查进行法医危及生命的危险评估。本回顾性研究旨在评估创伤存活概率(PS)评分是否可用于这些法医危及生命的危险评估,并确定 PS 评分的截断值作为评估危及生命危险的法医实践的辅助工具。我们比较了法医数据库和创伤数据库,确定了 161 名(年龄在 15 岁或以上)同时进行法医危及生命的危险评估和 PS 评分的个体。危及生命的危险评估包括以下陈述:未处于危及生命的危险(NLD);可能处于危及生命的危险(CLD);或处于危及生命的危险(LD)。纳入期为 2012 年至 2016 年。NLD、CLD 和 LD 之间的 PS 评分存在统计学显著差异(卡方检验:p<0.0001)。PS 评分对分类危及生命的危险评估的有用性通过接收者操作特征(ROC)曲线确定。曲线下面积为 0.76(95%CI,0.69 至 0.84),ROC 曲线表明 PS 评分截断值为 95.8 可适当识别 LD。因此,PS 评分低于 95.8 表示有危及生命的危险。我们建议进一步探讨如何将基于证据的 PS 评分(包括截断值)应用于临床法医陈述中,以增加这些陈述的科学力度。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3670/8036213/30887894eec5/414_2020_2499_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3670/8036213/f701dbbf7f40/414_2020_2499_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3670/8036213/439888d921ee/414_2020_2499_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3670/8036213/30887894eec5/414_2020_2499_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3670/8036213/f701dbbf7f40/414_2020_2499_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3670/8036213/439888d921ee/414_2020_2499_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3670/8036213/30887894eec5/414_2020_2499_Fig3_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
The usefulness of a trauma probability of survival model for forensic life-threatening danger assessments.创伤生存概率模型在法医学威胁生命危险评估中的作用。
Int J Legal Med. 2021 May;135(3):871-877. doi: 10.1007/s00414-020-02499-3. Epub 2021 Jan 3.
2
Life-threatening danger assessments of penetrating injuries in Eastern Danish clinical forensic medicine.丹麦东部临床法医中穿透性损伤的危及生命危险评估。
Int J Legal Med. 2021 May;135(3):861-870. doi: 10.1007/s00414-020-02485-9. Epub 2021 Jan 7.
3
The legal impact of forensic medical life-threatening danger assessment conclusions in cases of violent offense.论暴力犯罪案件中法医学危及生命危险评估结论的法律效力
Forensic Sci Int. 2021 Dec;329:111034. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.111034. Epub 2021 Sep 29.
4
[Role of anatomic and physiologic trauma scoring systems in forensic cases].[解剖学和生理学创伤评分系统在法医案件中的作用]
Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2009 May;15(3):285-92.
5
Risk stratification simplified: the worst injury predicts mortality for the injured children.简化的风险分层:最严重的损伤预示着受伤儿童的死亡率。
J Trauma. 2008 Dec;65(6):1258-61; discussion 1261-3. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31818cac29.
6
Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) coefficients 2009 revision.创伤和损伤严重程度评分(TRISS)系数2009年修订版。
J Trauma. 2010 Apr;68(4):761-70. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181d3223b.
7
New Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) adjustments for survival prediction.新创伤和损伤严重度评分(TRISS)调整以进行生存预测。
World J Emerg Surg. 2018 Mar 6;13:12. doi: 10.1186/s13017-018-0171-8. eCollection 2018.
8
Determining the most effective level of TRISS-derived probability of survival for use as an audit filter.确定用于审核筛选的TRISS衍生生存概率的最有效水平。
Emerg Med (Fremantle). 2002 Jun;14(2):146-52. doi: 10.1046/j.1442-2026.2002.00309.x.
9
Harborview assessment for risk of mortality: an improved measure of injury severity on the basis of ICD-9-CM.海港景医院死亡率风险评估:基于国际疾病分类第九版临床修订本(ICD - 9 - CM)的一种改进的损伤严重程度测量方法。
J Trauma. 2000 Sep;49(3):530-40; discussion 540-1. doi: 10.1097/00005373-200009000-00022.
10
The usefulness of trauma scores in determining the life threatening condition of trauma victims for writing medical-legal reports.创伤评分在确定创伤受害者危及生命状况以撰写法医学报告方面的实用性。
Emerg Med J. 2005 Nov;22(11):783-7. doi: 10.1136/emj.2004.019711.

引用本文的文献

1
Recommendations for victim survivability assessment methodology based on the Manchester Arena Bombing Inquiry.基于曼彻斯特竞技场爆炸案调查的受害者生存能力评估方法建议。
Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2025 Aug 11;11:100634. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100634. eCollection 2025 Dec.

本文引用的文献

1
Improved medical treatment could explain a decrease in homicides with a single stab wound.改进的医疗手段可以解释单一刺伤导致的凶杀案数量减少。
Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2020 Sep;16(3):415-422. doi: 10.1007/s12024-020-00246-z. Epub 2020 May 4.
2
Do Autopsies Still Matter? The Influence of Autopsy Data on Final Injury Severity Score Calculations.尸检是否仍然重要?尸检数据对最终损伤严重程度评分计算的影响。
J Surg Res. 2019 Jan;233:453-458. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.08.040. Epub 2018 Sep 22.
3
Decreased risk adjusted 30-day mortality for hospital admitted injuries: a multi-centre longitudinal study.
医院收治损伤患者的风险调整 30 天死亡率降低:一项多中心纵向研究。
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2018 Apr 3;26(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s13049-018-0485-2.
4
Prediction of mortality risk in victims of violent crimes.暴力犯罪受害者死亡风险的预测。
Forensic Sci Int. 2017 Dec;281:92-97. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.10.015. Epub 2017 Oct 20.
5
Prediction modelling for trauma using comorbidity and 'true' 30-day outcome.使用合并症和“真实”30天结局进行创伤预测建模。
Emerg Med J. 2015 Dec;32(12):933-8. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2015-205176. Epub 2015 Oct 22.
6
Trauma scoring systems and databases.创伤评分系统和数据库。
Br J Anaesth. 2014 Aug;113(2):286-94. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu242.
7
Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment.诊断测试评估中的受试者工作特征曲线。
J Thorac Oncol. 2010 Sep;5(9):1315-6. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181ec173d.
8
Abbreviated injury scale scoring in traffic fatalities: comparison of computerized tomography and autopsy.交通死亡事故中的简明损伤定级评分:计算机断层扫描与尸检的比较
J Trauma. 2010 Jun;68(6):1413-6. doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e3181b251b8.
9
Understanding diagnostic tests 3: Receiver operating characteristic curves.理解诊断测试3:受试者工作特征曲线。
Acta Paediatr. 2007 May;96(5):644-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2006.00178.x. Epub 2007 Mar 21.
10
The injury scale--a valuable tool for forensic documentation of trauma.损伤量表——创伤法医记录的宝贵工具。
J Clin Forensic Med. 2005 Feb;12(1):21-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jcfm.2004.08.002.