...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Research Methodology >Agreement of claims-based methods for identifying sepsis with clinical criteria in the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) cohort
【24h】

Agreement of claims-based methods for identifying sepsis with clinical criteria in the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) cohort

机译:基于声明的方法的协议,用于识别肠脓毒症的临床标准,原因是中风(关于)队列的地理和种族差异的原因

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Claims-based algorithms are commonly used to identify sepsis in health services research because the laboratory features required to define clinical criteria may not be available in administrative data. We evaluated claims-based sepsis algorithms among adults in the US aged ≥65?years with Medicare health insurance enrolled in the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study. Suspected infections from baseline (2003–2007) through December 31, 2012 were analyzed. Two claims-based algorithms were evaluated: (1) infection plus organ dysfunction diagnoses or sepsis diagnoses (Medicare-Implicit/Explicit) and (2) Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Severe Sepsis/Septic Shock Measure diagnoses (Medicare-CMS). Three classifications based on clinical criteria were used as standards for comparison: (1) the sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score (REGARDS-SOFA), (2) “quick” SOFA (REGARDS-qSOFA), and (3) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention electronic health record criteria (REGARDS-EHR). There were 2217 suspected infections among 9522 participants included in the current study. The total number of suspected infections classified as sepsis was 468 for Medicare-Implicit/Explicit, 249 for Medicare-CMS, 541 for REGARDS-SOFA, 185 for REGARDS-qSOFA, and 331 for REGARDS-EHR. The overall agreement between Medicare-Implicit/Explicit and REGARDS-SOFA, REGARDS-qSOFA, and REGARDS-EHR was 77, 79, and 81%, respectively, sensitivity was 46, 53, and 57%, and specificity was 87, 82, and 85%. Comparing Medicare-CMS and REGARDS-SOFA, REGARDS-qSOFA, and REGARDS-EHR, agreement was 77, 87, and 85%, respectively, sensitivity was 27, 41, and 36%, and specificity was 94, 92, and 93%. Events meeting the REGARDS-SOFA classification had a lower 90-day mortality rate (140.7 per 100 person-years) compared with the Medicare-CMS (296.1 per 100 person-years), REGARDS-qSOFA (238.6 per 100 person-years), Medicare-Implicit/Explicit (219.4 per 100 person-years), and REGARDS-EHR classifications (201.8 per 100 person-years). Claims-based sepsis algorithms have high agreement and specificity but low sensitivity when compared with clinical criteria. Both claims-based algorithms identified a patient population with similar 90-day mortality rates as compared with classifications based on qSOFA and EHR criteria but higher mortality relative to SOFA criteria.
机译:基于权利要求的算法通常用于识别卫生服务研究中的败血症,因为定义临床标准所需的实验室特征可能无法在行政数据中使用。我们在美国年龄≥65岁的成人中评估了基于索赔的脓毒症算法,Medicare Health保险的年龄较少注册了中风(问候)研究的地理和种族差异的原因。分析了来自2012年12月31日的基线(2003-2007)的疑似感染。评估了两种基于权利要求的算法:(1)感染加器官功能障碍诊断或败血区诊断(医疗保险/明确)和(2)Medicare和Medicare Services的中心严重败血症/脓毒冲击措施(Medicare-CM)。基于临床标准的三种分类用作比较标准:(1)败血症相关器官衰竭评估(沙发)得分(关于沙发),(2)“快速”沙发(关于QSOFA)和(3)疾病控制和预防电子健康记录标准(关于-EHR)的中心。 9522名参与者中涉及2217名疑似感染。归类为脓毒症的可疑感染总数为Medicare-Inclicit / Specis,249用于Medicare-CMS,541,关于-SOFA的关于-SOFA的541,以及关于-EHR的331个。 Medicare隐式/明确和关于-SOFA,关于-QSOFA和关于-EHR的总体协议分别为77,79和81%,敏感性为46,53和57%,特异性为87,82,和85%。比较Medicare-CMS和关于-SOFA,关于 - QSOFA和关于-EHR,协议分别为77,87和85%,灵敏度为27,41和36%,特异性为94,92和93% 。与Medicare-CMS(每100人 - 年为296.1人)相比,符合关于沙发分类的活动较低的90天死亡率(每100人每100人),QSOFA(每100人年238.6人),医疗保险 - 隐式/明确(每100人年219.4),以及关于-EHR分类(201.8每100人 - 年)。与临床标准相比,基于权利要求的败血症算法具有很高的协议和特异性,但具有低灵敏度。两种基于权利要求的算法都鉴定了具有相似90天死亡率的患者群,与基于QSOFA和EHR标准的分类相比,相对于沙发标准的死亡率较高。

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