首页> 外文期刊>Annals of family medicine >Comparing the diagnostic performance of 2 clinical decision rules to rule out deep vein thrombosis in primary care patients.
【24h】

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的诊断性能,以排除基层医疗患者的深静脉血栓形成。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

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:韦尔斯规则被广泛用于怀疑有深静脉血栓形成(DVT)的患者的临床评估,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,这将导致阴性结果。方法:家庭医生收集了1086名患者的数据,以在进行腿部超声检查之前计算两个决策规则的得分。在所有患者中,D-二聚体(二聚纤溶酶片段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DVT(通过超声检查诊断)和在90天的随访期内因可能的血栓栓塞事件而导致的静脉血栓栓塞并发症或死亡。我们计算了漏诊诊断次数和需要超声检查的患者比例这两个规则之间的差异。结果:来自1,002名合格患者的数据用于该分析。随访期间有7例低分D-二聚体阴性的患者在随访期间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%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%)。使用韦尔斯法则,有447名患者(45%)不需要转诊做进一步检查,而使用初级保健法则则为495名患者(49%)(McNemar P <.001)。结论:在初级保健中,可以结合使用两种规则中的任何一项,并结合现场即时D-二聚体测试,安全地排除可疑DVT。两种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
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