首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Annals of Family Medicine >Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of 2 Clinical Decision Rules to Rule Out Deep Vein Thrombosis in Primary Care Patients
【2h】

Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of 2 Clinical Decision Rules to Rule Out Deep Vein Thrombosis in Primary Care Patients

机译:比较两种临床决策规则在基层医疗患者中排除深静脉血栓形成的诊断性能

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>PURPOSE The Wells rule is widely used for clinical assessment of patients with suspected deep vein thrombosis (DVT), especially in the secondary care setting. Recently a new clinical decision rule for primary care patients (the primary care rule) has been proposed, because the Wells rule is not sufficient to rule out DVT in this setting. The objective was to compare the ability of both rules to safely rule out DVT and to efficiently reduce the number of referrals for leg ultrasound investigation that would result in a negative finding.>METHODS Family physicians collected data on 1,086 patients to calculate the scores for both decision rules before leg ultrasonography was performed. In all patients D-dimer (dimerized plasmin fragment D) testing was performed using a rapid point-of-care assay. Patients were stratified into risk categories defined by each rule and the D-dimer result. Outcomes were DVT (diagnosed by ultrasonography) and venous thromboembolic complications or death caused by a possible thromboembolic event during a 90-day follow-up period. We calculated the differences between the 2 rules in the number of missed diagnoses and the proportions of patients that needed ultrasound testing.>RESULTS Data from 1,002 eligible patients were used for this analysis. A venous thromboembolic event occurred during follow-up in 7 patients with a low score and negative D-dimer finding, both with the Wells rule (7 of 447; 1.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7%–3.3% ) and the primary care rule (7 of 495; 1.4%; 95% CI, 0.6%–3.0%). Using the Wells rule, 447 patients (45%) would not need referral for further testing compared with 495 patients (49%) when using the primary care rule (McNemar P <.001).>CONCLUSIONS In primary care, suspected DVT can safely be ruled out using either of the 2 rules in combination with a point-of-care D-dimer test. Both rules can reduce unnecessary referrals for compression ultrasonography by about 50%, though the primary care rule reduces it slightly more.
机译:>目的 Wells规则被广泛用于可疑深静脉血栓形成(DVT)患者的临床评估,尤其是在二级医疗机构中。最近,已经提出了针对基层医疗患者的新临床决策规则(基层医疗规则),因为在这种情况下,韦尔斯规则不足以排除DVT。目的是比较两种规则安全排除DVT的能力,并有效减少腿部超声检查转诊的数量,这些检查会导致阴性结果。>方法家庭医生收集了1,086位患者的数据在进行腿部超声检查之前计算两个决策规则的分数。在所有患者中,D-二聚体(二聚体纤溶酶片段D)均使用快速即时检测进行检测。根据每个规则和D-二聚体结果将患者分为危险类别。结果是在90天的随访期间DVT(通过超声检查诊断)和静脉血栓栓塞并发症或可能的血栓栓塞事件导致的死亡。我们计算了这两个规则在漏诊诊断次数和需要超声检查的患者比例之间的差异。>结果本研究使用了1,002名合格患者的数据。随访期间有7例低分D-二聚体阴性的患者发生了静脉血栓栓塞事件,均符合韦尔斯规则(447例中的7例; 1.6%; 95%的置信区间[CI],0.7%–3.3%)以及初级保健规则(495人中有7人; 1.4%; 95%CI,0.6%–3.0%)。使用韦尔斯规则,有447例患者(45%)不需要转诊以进行进一步检查,而使用初级保健规则时则为495例患者(49%)(McNemar P <.001)。>结论护理方面,可以使用2条规则中的任何一条并结合现场即时D-二聚体测试安全地排除疑似DVT。两条规则都可以将压缩超声检查的不必要转诊减少约50%,尽管初级保健规则将其减少得更多。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号