Bond R J, Kortbeek J B, Preshaw R M
Department of Surgery, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
J Trauma. 1997 Aug;43(2):283-7. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199708000-00013.
The objective of this study was to combine a physiologic triage score (prehospital index, PHI) with criteria regarding mechanism of injury (MOI) to increase the efficacy of trauma triage. The specific question being asked was: will the combined score improve the sensitivity and specificity over that of the individual scores?
In this prospective study, 3,147 injury patients (all adults > or = 14 years) were reviewed. Each patient received a PHI score and a MOI score in the field, which were compared with their Injury Severity Score (ISS) at separation. An ISS > or = 16 was defined as major trauma.
PHI alone had a sensitivity of 41%, MOI alone had a sensitivity of 73%, whereas the combined PHI/MOI score had a sensitivity of 78%. All three had similar specificities. These findings were statistically significant (p < or = 0.001).
The combined PHI/MOI score was better at identifying those patients with ISS scores > or = 16 compared with the PHI and MOI scores alone. Although this permitted superior triage (and minimized overtriage), the combined score did not identify all major trauma patients.
本研究的目的是将生理分诊评分(院前指数,PHI)与损伤机制(MOI)标准相结合,以提高创伤分诊的效率。所提出的具体问题是:综合评分是否会比单独评分提高敏感性和特异性?
在这项前瞻性研究中,对3147例损伤患者(所有年龄≥14岁的成年人)进行了评估。每位患者在现场接受了PHI评分和MOI评分,并与出院时的损伤严重度评分(ISS)进行比较。ISS≥16被定义为严重创伤。
单独的PHI敏感性为41%,单独的MOI敏感性为73%,而PHI/MOI综合评分的敏感性为78%。三者的特异性相似。这些结果具有统计学意义(p≤0.001)。
与单独的PHI和MOI评分相比,PHI/MOI综合评分在识别ISS评分≥16的患者方面表现更佳。虽然这使得分诊更优(并将过度分诊降至最低),但综合评分并未识别出所有严重创伤患者。