Chen X L, Huang J L, Liu J X, Liu Y, Fang Y, Zhang D D, Pan L, Wang Y
Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Affiliated to Capital Medical University, Beijing 100038, China.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beijing Shijitan Hospital, Beijing 100038, China.
Zhonghua Xin Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi. 2022 Aug 24;50(8):811-816. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112148-20220110-00025.
To evaluate the consistency of patient-completed and physician-completed Caprini scores. This study was a diagnostic study. We prospectively recruited 200 inpatients (including respiratory and critical care medicine, rheumatology and immunology, obstetrics and gynecology, and orthopedics). Clinical data of the recruited patients were collected. The Wechat applet was developed based on the Chinese version of the patient-completed Caprini score. Patient could enter the Wechat applet by scanning the QR code, and enter the height, weight and other contents to the Wechat applet. The applet could automatically calculate the score and make the risk stratification according to total score. At the same time, physicians would calculate the traditional Caprini score for the same patient and make risk stratification to evaluate the consistency of scores derived from the two methods. The average age of these 200 patients was (59.6±13.9) years, 112(56.0%) of them were female and 184(92.0%) with high school education or above. There was no significant difference between the patient-completed and physician-completed scores (4.8±2.5 vs. 4.7±2.5,=0.336). The time of physician-completed score was shorter than that of patient-completed score ((2.0±1.0) minutes vs.(2.4±1.2) minutes, <0.000 1). There was no significant difference on the number of high-highest venous thromboembolism risk patients assessed by the patient-completed and the physician-completed scores: 84.5% (169/200) vs. 83.0%(166/200)(χ=0.165, =0.684).There was strong positive correlations between patient-completed and physician-completed scores (=0.98, <0.000 1). Cohen's ĸ evaluation showed that the patient-completed Caprini score was in excellent consistency with physician-completed Caprini score(κ=0.97,<0.000 1). The result of Bland Altman method showed that only 3.0% (6/200) of the scores biased greatly, which was not within the 95% confidence interval, the result proved that the bias belonged to a small probability event. It was inferred that the scores of patient-completed were consistent with those of the physician-completed. The patient-completed Caprini score is in good agreement with the physician-completed Caprini score in this patient cohort.
评估患者填写的和医生填写的Caprini评分的一致性。本研究为诊断性研究。我们前瞻性招募了200名住院患者（包括呼吸与危重症医学、风湿免疫、妇产科和骨科）。收集所招募患者的临床资料。基于中文版患者填写的Caprini评分开发了微信小程序。患者可通过扫描二维码进入微信小程序，并在小程序中输入身高、体重等内容。该小程序可自动计算评分并根据总分进行风险分层。同时，医生会为同一患者计算传统的Caprini评分并进行风险分层，以评估两种方法得出的评分的一致性。这200名患者的平均年龄为（59.6±13.9）岁，其中112名（56.0%）为女性，184名（92.0%）具有高中及以上学历。患者填写的评分与医生填写的评分之间无显著差异（4.8±2.5 vs. 4.7±2.5，P=0.336）。医生填写评分的时间短于患者填写评分的时间（（2.0±1.0）分钟 vs.（2.4±1.2）分钟，P<0.000 1）。患者填写的评分和医生填写的评分评估的高-极高静脉血栓栓塞风险患者数量无显著差异：84.5%（169/200） vs. 83.0%（166/200）（χ²=0.165，P=0.684）。患者填写的评分与医生填写的评分之间存在强正相关（r=0.98，P<0.000 1）。Cohen's κ评估显示，患者填写的Caprini评分与医生填写的Caprini评分具有极佳的一致性（κ=0.97，P<0.000 1）。Bland Altman方法的结果显示，只有3.0%（6/200）的评分偏差较大，不在95%置信区间内，结果证明该偏差属于小概率事件。推断患者填写的评分与医生填写的评分一致。在该患者队列中，患者填写的Caprini评分与医生填写的Caprini评分具有良好的一致性。
