首页> 外文期刊>Gastroenterology Research >Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage Severity Triage: Locally Derived Score May Outperform Existing Scoring Systems
【24h】

Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage Severity Triage: Locally Derived Score May Outperform Existing Scoring Systems

机译:胃肠道出血严重程度分级:本地派生评分可能优于现有评分系统

获取原文
           

摘要

Background: Scoring tools to predict need for intervention, re-bleeding and mortality of upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) have been developed. It is inconclusive whether these tools are also appropriate for UGIH severity and/or urgency triage. The objective of the study was to compare the performances of the Blatchford score, the Rockall score, and the UGIH score on UGIH severity triage.Methods: Retrospective 3-year data of UGIH patients (2009 - 2011) were collected. Patients were assigned to each of the three scoring systems based on their clinical characteristics required for the scoring systems. The score ranges of each scoring system were transformed into the same scale from 0 to 100. The score performances were compared by diagnostic indices, graphically presented with area under receiver operating curve (AuROC), discrimination curves, and statistically tested with Chi-squared tests.Results: When focusing on the diagnostic indices, the local UGIH had similar sensitivity to, but better specificity than the Blatchford score in detecting mild UGIH. The sensitivity was better than and the specificity was less than the Blatchford score in detecting severe UGIH. The local UGIH score was better than the pre-endoscopic Rockall in almost all diagnostic indices. Focusing overall performances, the local UGIH score classified patients non-significantly better than the Blatchford: 89.3% vs. 87.9% for mild (P = 0.243), 87.2% vs. 85.0% for severe (P = 0.092), but significantly classified better than the pre-endoscopic Rockall score: 89.3% vs. 76.4% for mild (P < 0.001), and 87.2% vs. 81.2% for severe (P < 0.001). When exploring the discrimination curves, the Blatchford score classified more patients into the mild categories, and less into the severe categories than the local UGIH score. In contrast, the pre-endoscopic Rockall score classified less patients into the mild, but more into the severe than the local UGIH score.Conclusion: Triaging UGIH patients into three severity levels in order to decide or set for endoscopy should apply the scoring system specifically developed for that purpose. Adopting other scores developed for other purposes may result in under- and/or over-estimations. The local UGIH score classified patients into three severity levels to help indicate endoscopy more efficiently than the Blatchford score and the pre-endoscopic Rockall score which was developed for different purposes.Gastroenterol Res. 2015;8(2):186-192doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/gr652w
机译:背景:已开发出计分工具,以预测上消化道出血(UGIH)的干预,再出血和死亡率的需求。这些工具是否也适用于UGIH严重性和/或紧急情况分类尚无定论。该研究的目的是比较UGIH严重性分类的Blatchford评分,Rockall评分和UGIH评分的表现。方法:收集UGIH​​患者(2009年至2011年)的3年回顾性数据。根据评分系统所需的临床特征,将患者分配到三个评分系统中的每一个。将每个评分系统的评分范围转换为从0到100的相同等级。通过诊断指标比较评分表现,以图形方式显示接收者工作曲线下的面积(AuROC),区分度曲线,并通过卡方检验进行统计检验结果:当关注诊断指标时,局部UGIH在检测轻度UGIH方面具有与Blatchford评分相似的敏感性,但特异性更高。在检测重度UGIH时,灵敏度优于Blatchford评分,特异性低于Batchtford评分。在几乎所有诊断指标中,局部UGIH评分均优于内镜检查前的Rockall。着眼于整体表现,局部UGIH评分对患者的分类明显优于Blatchford:轻度患者(P = 0.243)分别为89.3%和87.9%,重度患者(P = 0.092)分别为87.2%和85.0%,但显着更好比内镜检查前的Rockall评分:轻度(P <0.001)分别为89.3%和76.4%,重度(P <0.001)分别为87.2%和81.2%。在探索区分曲线时,与当地的UGIH评分相比,Blatchford评分将更多患者分类为轻度类别,将更少的患者分类为重度类别。相比之下,内镜检查前的Rockall评分将轻度患者分类为轻度患者,而重症患者分类为局部UGIH评分。结论:将UGIH患者分为三个严重性等级以决定或设置内窥镜检查,应专门应用评分系统为此目的而开发。采用为其他目的而开发的其他分数可能会导致低估和/或高估。本地的UGIH评分将患者分为三个严重程度级别,以帮助他们比为不同目的而开发的Blatchford评分和内镜前Rockall评分更有效地指示内窥镜检查。 2015; 8(2):186-192doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/gr652w

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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