Suppr超能文献

院前分诊工具对老年创伤患者中重大创伤识别的诊断准确性:系统评价。

Diagnostic accuracy of prehospital triage tools for identifying major trauma in elderly injured patients: A systematic review.

机构信息

From the School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, United Kingdom.

出版信息

J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021 Feb 1;90(2):403-412. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003039.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Older adults with major trauma are frequently undertriaged, increasing the risk of preventable morbidity and mortality. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of prehospital triage tools to identify suspected elderly trauma patients in need of specialized trauma care.

METHODS

Several electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to February 2019. Prospective or retrospective diagnostic studies were eligible if they examined prehospital triage tools as index tests (either scored theoretically using observed patient variables or evaluated according to actual paramedic transport decisions) compared with a reference standard for major trauma in elderly adults who require transport by paramedics following injury. Selection of studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool were undertaken independently by at least two reviewers. Narrative synthesis was used to summarize the findings.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, with 11 studies examining theoretical accuracy, three evaluating real-life transport decisions, and one assessing both (of 21 individual index tests). Estimates for sensitivity and specificity were highly variable with sensitivity estimates ranging from 19.8% to 95.5% and 57.7% to 83.3% for theoretical accuracy and real life triage performance, respectively. Specificity results were similarly diverse ranging from 17.0% to 93.1% for theoretical accuracy and 46.3% to 78.9% for actual paramedic decisions. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias and applicability concerns. There were no obvious differences between different triage tools, and findings did not appear to vary systematically with major trauma prevalence, age, alternative reference standards, study designs, or setting.

CONCLUSION

Existing prehospital triage tools may not accurately identify elderly patients with serious injury. Future work should focus on more relevant reference standards, establishing the best trade-off between undertriage and overtriage, optimizing the role prehospital clinician judgment, and further developing geriatric specific triage variables and thresholds.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review, level III.

摘要

背景

有重大创伤的老年患者经常被分诊过低,增加了可预防发病率和死亡率的风险。本系统评价的目的是评估院前分诊工具对需要专科创伤护理的疑似老年创伤患者的诊断性能。

方法

从建库到 2019 年 2 月,我们在多个电子数据库(包括 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 图书馆)中进行了检索。如果前瞻性或回顾性诊断研究使用理论上的分诊工具作为指标测试(使用观察到的患者变量进行评分或根据实际护理人员的转运决策进行评估),并与老年人重大创伤的参考标准进行比较,并且这些老年人在受伤后需要由护理人员转运,那么这些研究就符合纳入标准。研究选择、数据提取和使用 QUADAS-2 工具进行的偏倚风险评估由至少两名评审员独立进行。使用叙述性综合法总结研究结果。

结果

有 15 项研究符合纳入标准,其中 11 项研究检查了理论准确性,3 项评估了实际转运决策,1 项评估了两者(21 个单独的指标测试)。敏感性和特异性的估计值差异很大,理论准确性的敏感性估计值范围为 19.8%至 95.5%,真实生活分诊性能的敏感性估计值范围为 57.7%至 83.3%。特异性结果也同样多样,理论准确性的特异性范围为 17.0%至 93.1%,实际护理人员决策的特异性范围为 46.3%至 78.9%。大多数研究的偏倚风险和适用性存在不确定性或高风险。不同的分诊工具之间没有明显的差异,并且研究结果似乎没有随着重大创伤的患病率、年龄、替代参考标准、研究设计或环境的变化而系统地变化。

结论

现有的院前分诊工具可能无法准确识别有严重损伤的老年患者。未来的工作应重点关注更相关的参考标准,在过度分诊和漏诊之间取得最佳平衡,优化院前临床医生判断的作用,并进一步开发针对老年人的特定分诊变量和阈值。

证据水平

系统评价,III 级。

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