Blanc P D, Jones M R, Olson K R
Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Am J Emerg Med. 1993 Jan;11(1):14-9. doi: 10.1016/0735-6757(93)90051-c.
There is no gold standard for determining poisoning incidence. We wished to compare four measures of poisoning incidence: International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision (ICD-9) principal (N-code) and supplemental external cause of injury (E-code) designations, poison control center (PCC) reporting, and detection by the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN). We studied a case series at two urban hospitals. We assigned ICD-9 N-code and E-code classifications, determining whether these matched with medical records. We ascertained PCC and DAWN system reporting. A total of 724 subjects met entry criteria; 533 were studied (74%). We matched poisoning N-codes for 278 patients (52%), E-code by cause in 306 patients (57%), and E-code by intent in 171 patients (32%). A total of 383 patients (72%) received any poisoning N-code or any E-code. We found that PCC and DAWN reporting occurred for 123 of all patients (23%) and 399 of 487 eligible patients (82%), respectively. In multiple logistic regression, factors of age, hospital admission, suicidal intent, principal poisoning or overdose type, and mixed drug overdose were statistically significant predictors of case match or report varying by surveillance measure. Our findings indicate that common surveillance measures of poisoning and drug overdose may systematically undercount morbidity.
目前尚无确定中毒发生率的金标准。我们希望比较中毒发生率的四种衡量方法:《国际疾病分类》第九版(ICD - 9)主要编码(N编码)和补充外部损伤原因(E编码)指定、中毒控制中心(PCC)报告以及药物滥用预警网络(DAWN)的检测。我们在两家城市医院研究了一个病例系列。我们指定了ICD - 9的N编码和E编码分类,确定这些编码是否与病历相符。我们确定了PCC和DAWN系统的报告情况。共有724名受试者符合入选标准;对其中533名进行了研究(74%)。我们为278名患者(52%)匹配了中毒N编码,为306名患者(57%)按病因匹配了E编码,为171名患者(32%)按意图匹配了E编码。共有383名患者(72%)被赋予了任何中毒N编码或任何E编码。我们发现,PCC报告和DAWN报告分别出现在所有患者中的123例(23%)以及487例符合条件患者中的399例(82%)。在多元逻辑回归分析中,年龄、住院、自杀意图、主要中毒或药物过量类型以及混合药物过量等因素是病例匹配或报告情况的统计学显著预测因素,因监测方法而异。我们的研究结果表明,中毒和药物过量的常见监测方法可能会系统性地低估发病率。