首页> 外文OA文献 >Risk scoring models for predicting peri-operative morbidity and mortality in people with fragility hip fractures: qualitative systematic review
【2h】

Risk scoring models for predicting peri-operative morbidity and mortality in people with fragility hip fractures: qualitative systematic review

机译:风险评分模型预测脆性髋部骨折患者围手术期的发病率和死亡率:定性系统评价

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。
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Rationale: Accurate peri-operative risk prediction is an essential element of clinical practice. Various risk stratification tools for assessing patients’ risk of mortality or morbidity have been developed and applied in clinical practice over the years. This review aims to outline essential characteristics (predictive accuracy, objectivity, clinical utility) of currently available risk scoring tools for hip fracture patients.udMethods: We searched eight databases; AMED, CINHAL, Clinical Trials.gov, Cochrane, DARE, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science for all relevant studies published until April 2015. We included published English language observational studies that considered the predictive accuracy of risk stratification tools for patients with fragility hip fracture.udResults: After removal of duplicates, 15,620 studies were screened. Twenty-nine papers met the inclusion criteria, evaluating 25 risk stratification tools. Risk stratification tools considered in more than two studies were; ASA, CCI, E-PASS, NHFS and O-POSSUM. All tools were moderately accurate and validated in multiple studies; however there are some limitations to consider. The E-PASS and O-POSSUM are comprehensive but complex, and require intraoperative data making them a challenge for use on patient bedside. The ASA, CCI and NHFS are simple, easy and inexpensive using routinely available preoperative data. Contrary to the ASA and CCI which has subjective variables in addition to other limitations, the NHFS variables are all objective.udConclusion: In the search for a simple and inexpensive, easy to calculate, objective and accurate tool, the NHFS may be the most appropriate of the currently available scores for hip fracture patients. However more studies need to be undertaken before it becomes a national hip fracture risk stratification or audit tool of choice.
机译:理由:准确的围手术期风险预测是​​临床实践的基本要素。多年来,已经开发出各种评估患者死亡或发病风险的风险分层工具,并将其应用于临床。这篇综述旨在概述髋关节骨折患者当前可用的风险评分工具的基本特征(预测准确性,客观性,临床实用性)。 AMED,CINHAL,Clinical Trials.gov,Cochrane,DARE,EMBASE,MEDLINE和Web of Science直到2015年4月为止的所有相关研究均已发表。我们纳入了已发表的英语观察性研究,其中考虑了脆性髋关节病患者风险分层工具的预测准确性结果:去除重复项后,筛选了15,620个研究。共有29篇论文符合纳入标准,评估了25种风险分层工具。在两项以上的研究中考虑的风险分层工具是: ASA,CCI,E-PASS,NHFS和O-POSSUM。所有工具都具有中等准确性,并在多项研究中得到了验证;但是,有一些限制要考虑。 E-PASS和O-POSSUM既全面又复杂,并且需要术中数据,这使得它们很难在患者床旁使用。使用常规可获得的术前数据,ASA,CCI和NHFS简单,容易且便宜。与ASA和CCI相比,除其他限制外,它还具有主观变量,因此NHFS变量都是客观的。 ud结论:在寻找一种简单,廉价,易于计算,客观和准确的工具时,NHFS可能是最适用于髋部骨折患者目前可获得的分数。然而,在成为全国性髋部骨折风险分层或选择的审计工具之前,还需要进行更多的研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

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