Suppr超能文献

急诊科儿童哮喘评分指南推荐分析:一项儿科急诊研究网络的研究。

Analysis of the asthma scores recommended in guidelines for children presenting to the emergency department: a Pediatric Emergency Research Networks study.

作者信息

Gray Charmaine, Collings Madeline, Benito Javier, Velasco Roberto, Lyttle Mark D, Roland Damian, Schuh Suzanne, Shihabuddin Bashar, Kwok Maria, Mahajan Prashant, Johnson Mike, Zorc Joseph, Khanna Kajal, Yock-Corrales Adriana, Fernandes Ricardo M, Santhanam Indumathy, Cheema Baljit, Ong Gene Yong-Kwang, Jaiganesh Thiagarajan, Powell Colin, Dalziel Stuart, Babl Franz E, Couper Jennifer, Craig Simon

机构信息

Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Emergency Department, Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.

出版信息

Arch Dis Child. 2025 May 16;110(6):422-428. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2024-327635.

Abstract

RATIONALE

While there are numerous published paediatric asthma scores, it is unknown how commonly scores are recommended in asthma guidelines across different geographical regions globally, and what their validation status is.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To describe which clinical guidelines recommend asthma scores across different geographical regions. (2) To describe the initial and subsequent validation of the commonly recommended asthma scores.

METHODS

Observational study of asthma scores recommended in guidelines for the management of acute paediatric asthma from institutions across the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Network; global paediatric emergency medicine research network comprising all eight local and regional paediatric emergency medicine research networks.

MAIN RESULTS

158 guidelines were identified. Overall, 83/158 (53%) guidelines recommend a bedside clinical score for assessment of asthma severity. While a single country-specific clinical score was recommended in all guidelines from Spain and Canada, 27/28 (96%) of the USA guidelines recommend a wide variety of scores, and scores are rarely recommended in guidelines from other research networks (PERUKI, Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland and PREDICT, Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative in Australia and New Zealand) and other countries (Costa Rica, South Africa, Nigeria, Singapore, India).The Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) and the pulmonary score (PS) were the most frequently used scoring instruments. While the PRAM has undergone the most extensive validation, including construct validity, validation studies for the PS are limited. Inter-rater reliability, as well as the criterion, responsiveness and discriminative validity aspects represent the most common limitations in many of the scores.

CONCLUSIONS

There are marked geographical differences in both the recommendation for and the type of clinical asthma score in clinical practice guidelines. While many asthma scores are recommended, most have insufficient validation.

摘要

理论依据

虽然已发表了众多儿科哮喘评分,但尚不清楚全球不同地理区域的哮喘指南中推荐使用评分的频率以及它们的验证状态。

目的

(1)描述不同地理区域哪些临床指南推荐哮喘评分。(2)描述常用哮喘评分的初始验证和后续验证情况。

方法

对儿科急诊医学网络中各机构的急性儿科哮喘管理指南所推荐的哮喘评分进行观察性研究;该全球儿科急诊医学研究网络由所有八个地方和区域儿科急诊医学研究网络组成。

主要结果

共识别出158份指南。总体而言,83/158(53%)的指南推荐使用床边临床评分来评估哮喘严重程度。西班牙和加拿大的所有指南都推荐了单一的特定国家临床评分,而美国27/28(96%)的指南推荐了多种评分,其他研究网络(英国和爱尔兰的儿科急诊研究PERUKI以及澳大利亚和新西兰的国际急诊部门儿科研究协作组织PREDICT)和其他国家(哥斯达黎加、南非、尼日利亚、新加坡、印度)的指南很少推荐评分。儿科呼吸评估量表(PRAM)和肺部评分(PS)是最常用的评分工具。虽然PRAM已进行了最广泛的验证,包括结构效度验证,但针对PS的验证研究有限。评分者间信度以及标准效度、反应度和区分效度方面是许多评分中最常见的局限性。

结论

临床实践指南中在哮喘临床评分的推荐和类型方面存在显著的地理差异。虽然推荐了许多哮喘评分,但大多数验证不足。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/e8a8/12171506/4a01d2ca1c93/archdischild-110-6-g001.jpg

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