Dennett E R, Kipping R R, Parry B R, Windsor J
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health Science, University of Auckland.
N Z Med J. 1998 Jun 26;111(1068):231-3.
To compare two priority access criteria scoring methods for elective cholecystectomy, with a score based on clinical judgement obtained using a linear analogue scale.
Patients placed on the waiting list for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy between June and October 1997 were prioritised using the three methods.
Data were obtained for 22 patients. The distributions of scores were different but there was a significant correlation between them. However, limits of agreement analysis demonstrated little agreement between them with a difference of +/- 30 points (out of a 100) between scores obtained with each method.
The proposed methods for establishing priority access to elective cholecystectomy are poor tools, require validation and bear little relation to expert clinical judgement.
比较两种用于择期胆囊切除术的优先准入标准评分方法，其中一种评分基于使用线性模拟量表获得的临床判断。
采用这三种方法对1997年6月至10月期间列入择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术等候名单的患者进行优先排序。
获取了22例患者的数据。评分分布不同，但它们之间存在显著相关性。然而，一致性界限分析表明它们之间的一致性较差，每种方法获得的评分之间相差±30分（满分100分）。
所提出的用于确定择期胆囊切除术优先准入的方法是不完善的工具，需要验证，且与专家临床判断关系不大。
