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