...
首页> 外文期刊>Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research >Another look: Is there a flaw to current hip septic arthritis diagnostic algorithms?
【24h】

Another look: Is there a flaw to current hip septic arthritis diagnostic algorithms?

机译:另一种外观:当前髋关节静脉关节炎诊断算法有缺陷吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background: Septic arthritis is an emergency. In 1999 Kocher et al. identified four clinical criteria to distinguish hip septic arthritis from transient synovitis in children (non-weightbearing, erythrocyte sedimentation rate ≥ 40 mm/L, white blood cell count 12 × 109/L, temperature 38.5°C). Subsequent authors evaluating the same criteria produced conflicting results. This calls into question the use of such diagnostic algorithms. The reasons for the differences remain unclear. Questions/purposes: To what degree do studies, evaluating the predictive ability of diagnostic algorithms for septic arthritis, differ with regard to their results? Why do these differences exist? Is there a flaw in the statistical handling of the data? Methods: Using PubMed, original studies evaluating the clinical criteria for distinguishing hip septic arthritis and transient synovitis in children were identified. Clinical and statistical methods were examined. Results: Six studies evaluated the clinical criteria. Two found all four criteria able to distinguish septic arthritis from transient synovitis. There was significant variation between the studies in the risk engendered by the presence of each criteria. The differences were the result of the fact that in all cases, sample sizes were too small and in three cases, there were too few episodes of septic arthritis for a reliable predictive algorithm to be produced. Conclusions: Differing results between studies appear as a result of sample size and insufficient cases of septic arthritis in some cohorts. Transferable and reliable results can be achieved if sufficiently large samples with an adequate number of cases of septic arthritis are recruited.
机译:背景:化脓性关节炎是一种紧急情况。 1999年kocher等。确定了四种临床标准,以区分髋关节静脉关节炎从儿童瞬时滑膜炎(非重量,红细胞沉降率≥40mm/ L,白细胞计数≥12×109 / L,温度& 38.5°C)。随后评估相同标准的作者产生了相互矛盾的结果。此调用问题使用此类诊断算法。差异的原因仍然不清楚。问题/目的:在多大程度上进行研究,评估疾病关节炎诊断算法的预测能力,与其结果有所不同吗?为什么这些差异存在?数据的统计处理是否有缺陷?方法:使用PUBMED,评估临床标准的临床标准,以区分髋关节症状性关节炎和儿童瞬时滑膜炎。检查临床和统计方法。结果:六项研究评估了临床标准。两次发现所有四个标准能够从短暂性滑膜炎区分化脓性关节炎。通过每个标准的存在,研究的研究之间存在显着变化。差异是事实上,在所有情况下,样品尺寸太小,在三种情况下,用于生产可靠的预测算法的脓化性关节炎的剧集太少。结论:由于样品大小和一些群组中的脓毒症关节炎病例的结果出现不同的结果。如果招募具有足够大的样品,可以征集可转移和可靠的结果,其中征集足够大的样品。

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