Comparison of various clinical scoring systems in assessing the probability of pulmonary thromboembolism in adults in a Tertiary Care Hospital in South India

R. Gogulakrishnan, Gayathri Ramakrishnan
{"title":"Comparison of various clinical scoring systems in assessing the probability of pulmonary thromboembolism in adults in a Tertiary Care Hospital in South India","authors":"R. Gogulakrishnan, Gayathri Ramakrishnan","doi":"10.4103/japt.japt_18_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The aim of the study was to compare various clinical scoring systems used in detecting pulmonary embolism (PE) in adults in Tertiary Care Hospital in South India. Materials and Methods: Prospective study was done in Apollo Hospital, Greams Road, Chennai, from January 2016 to December 2017. Sixty-five patients with suspected PE were included in the study. Details such as age, sex, pulse rate, and blood pressure were collected. Probability of PE was calculated with all four clinical scoring systems (Wells score, simplified Wells score, revised Geneva score, and simplified revised Geneva score) and compared with computed tomography–pulmonary angiography which was considered the gold standard. Results: This study included 65 patients with suspected PE. Among 65 patients, 39 (60%) were male and 26 (40%) were female. PE was present in 23 (35.4%) patients, of which 14 (60.9%) were male and 9 (39.1%) were female, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.916). Wells score had a sensitivity of 87%, specificity of 67%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 59%, and negative predictive value of 90%. Simplified Wells score had a sensitivity of 91%, specificity of 50%, PPV of 50%, and negative predictive value of 91%. The revised Geneva score had a sensitivity of 70%, specificity of 52%, PPV of 44%, and negative predictive value of 76%. Simplified revised Geneva score had a sensitivity of 65%, specificity of 57%, PPV of 45%, and negative predictive value of 75%. Conclusion: From this study, we were able to infer that the simplified Wells score had high sensitivity and Wells score had high specificity in the diagnosis of PE. Simplified revised Geneva score had the least negative predictive value. It is very important to have a high index of suspicion for the diagnosis of PE and the clinical predictability scores are valuable tools in this regard.","PeriodicalId":348236,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Association of Pulmonologist of Tamil Nadu","volume":"83 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Association of Pulmonologist of Tamil Nadu","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/japt.japt_18_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The aim of the study was to compare various clinical scoring systems used in detecting pulmonary embolism (PE) in adults in Tertiary Care Hospital in South India. Materials and Methods: Prospective study was done in Apollo Hospital, Greams Road, Chennai, from January 2016 to December 2017. Sixty-five patients with suspected PE were included in the study. Details such as age, sex, pulse rate, and blood pressure were collected. Probability of PE was calculated with all four clinical scoring systems (Wells score, simplified Wells score, revised Geneva score, and simplified revised Geneva score) and compared with computed tomography–pulmonary angiography which was considered the gold standard. Results: This study included 65 patients with suspected PE. Among 65 patients, 39 (60%) were male and 26 (40%) were female. PE was present in 23 (35.4%) patients, of which 14 (60.9%) were male and 9 (39.1%) were female, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.916). Wells score had a sensitivity of 87%, specificity of 67%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 59%, and negative predictive value of 90%. Simplified Wells score had a sensitivity of 91%, specificity of 50%, PPV of 50%, and negative predictive value of 91%. The revised Geneva score had a sensitivity of 70%, specificity of 52%, PPV of 44%, and negative predictive value of 76%. Simplified revised Geneva score had a sensitivity of 65%, specificity of 57%, PPV of 45%, and negative predictive value of 75%. Conclusion: From this study, we were able to infer that the simplified Wells score had high sensitivity and Wells score had high specificity in the diagnosis of PE. Simplified revised Geneva score had the least negative predictive value. It is very important to have a high index of suspicion for the diagnosis of PE and the clinical predictability scores are valuable tools in this regard.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
各种临床评分系统在评估肺血栓栓塞的可能性在印度南部三级护理医院
目的:本研究的目的是比较印度南部三级医院用于检测成人肺栓塞(PE)的各种临床评分系统。材料与方法:前瞻性研究于2016年1月至2017年12月在金奈Greams路Apollo医院进行。65例疑似PE患者纳入研究。收集了年龄、性别、脉搏率和血压等详细信息。使用所有四种临床评分系统(Wells评分、简化Wells评分、修订Geneva评分和简化修订Geneva评分)计算PE的概率,并与被认为是金标准的计算机断层摄影-肺血管造影进行比较。结果:本研究纳入了65例疑似PE患者。65例患者中,男性39例(60%),女性26例(40%)。PE患者23例(35.4%),其中男性14例(60.9%),女性9例(39.1%),差异无统计学意义(P = 0.916)。Wells评分的敏感性为87%,特异性为67%,阳性预测值为59%,阴性预测值为90%。简化Wells评分的敏感性为91%,特异性为50%,PPV为50%,阴性预测值为91%。修订后的Geneva评分的敏感性为70%,特异性为52%,PPV为44%,阴性预测值为76%。简化修订Geneva评分的敏感性为65%,特异性为57%,PPV为45%,阴性预测值为75%。结论:通过本研究,我们可以推断简化的Wells评分对PE的诊断具有较高的敏感性和特异性。简化修订日内瓦评分的负预测价值最小。对于PE的诊断,高怀疑指数是非常重要的,在这方面,临床可预测性评分是有价值的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Knowledge and Practices of Airborne Infection Control at the Household Level among Pulmonary Tuberculosis Patients Attending a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital in Central Karnataka, India Hemoptysis and Deep Vein Thrombosis in a middle aged male due to Anti Phospholipid Antibody (APLA) Syndrome’’ - A Case Report Lipoid Pneumonia: Siphoning of Gasoline Can Oscillometry Replace Spirometry as a Major Tool for Lung Function Testing? – An Overview Excessive Dynamic Airway Collapse
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1