Development and internal validation of a diagnostic prediction model for life-threatening events in callers with shortness of breath: a cross-sectional study in out-of-hours primary care.

IF 5.3 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL British Journal of General Practice Pub Date : 2025-01-21 DOI:10.3399/BJGP.2024.0538
Michelle Spek, Roderick P Venekamp, Anne A H de Hond, Esther de Groot, Geert-Jan Geersing, Anna Sm Dobbe, Mathé Delissen, Frans Rutten, Maarten Smeden, Dorien Zwart
{"title":"Development and internal validation of a diagnostic prediction model for life-threatening events in callers with shortness of breath: a cross-sectional study in out-of-hours primary care.","authors":"Michelle Spek, Roderick P Venekamp, Anne A H de Hond, Esther de Groot, Geert-Jan Geersing, Anna Sm Dobbe, Mathé Delissen, Frans Rutten, Maarten Smeden, Dorien Zwart","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2024.0538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To develop and internally validate a model predicting life-threatening events for out-of-hours primary care callers with shortness of breath.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This cross-sectional study includes data from 1,952 patients with shortness of breath who called out-of-hours primary care between September 2020 and August 2021. Four logistic regression models were developed with life-threatening events as the outcome. We started with a model of age and gender (model 1) and successively added call characteristics (calling at night and someone else calling on behalf of the patient; model 2), symptoms (cough, fever, inability to speak full sentences and wheezing; model 3), and medical history and medication use (cardiovascular and/or pulmonary; model 4). The models were internally validated using optimism correction via bootstrap with 1000 repetitions. Performance measures of discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration (calibration intercept and slope) were determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Approximately 17% of callers with shortness of breath had a life-threatening event. Model 3 performed best. This model exhibited good discriminative ability (internal validation c-statistic of 0.764 (95% CI: 0.739 to 0.792)) and was well calibrated. All models had a high net benefit compared to using no model. Models 3 and 4 had a higher net benefit compared with models 1 and 2. As models 3 and 4 were similar in terms of net benefit, the model with fewer parameters (model 3) is preferred.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A prediction model consisting of age, gender, call characteristics, and symptoms holds promise for improving telephone triage of callers to out-of-hours primary care with shortness of breath.</p>","PeriodicalId":55320,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of General Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2024.0538","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To develop and internally validate a model predicting life-threatening events for out-of-hours primary care callers with shortness of breath.

Method: This cross-sectional study includes data from 1,952 patients with shortness of breath who called out-of-hours primary care between September 2020 and August 2021. Four logistic regression models were developed with life-threatening events as the outcome. We started with a model of age and gender (model 1) and successively added call characteristics (calling at night and someone else calling on behalf of the patient; model 2), symptoms (cough, fever, inability to speak full sentences and wheezing; model 3), and medical history and medication use (cardiovascular and/or pulmonary; model 4). The models were internally validated using optimism correction via bootstrap with 1000 repetitions. Performance measures of discrimination (c-statistic) and calibration (calibration intercept and slope) were determined.

Results: Approximately 17% of callers with shortness of breath had a life-threatening event. Model 3 performed best. This model exhibited good discriminative ability (internal validation c-statistic of 0.764 (95% CI: 0.739 to 0.792)) and was well calibrated. All models had a high net benefit compared to using no model. Models 3 and 4 had a higher net benefit compared with models 1 and 2. As models 3 and 4 were similar in terms of net benefit, the model with fewer parameters (model 3) is preferred.

Conclusion: A prediction model consisting of age, gender, call characteristics, and symptoms holds promise for improving telephone triage of callers to out-of-hours primary care with shortness of breath.

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
发展和内部验证的诊断预测模型对危及生命的事件呼叫者呼吸短促:一个横断面研究在非工作时间的初级保健。
目的:开发和内部验证一个模型,预测危及生命的事件,在非工作时间的初级保健呼叫呼吸短促。方法:本横断面研究包括2020年9月至2021年8月期间呼叫非工作时间初级保健的1952例呼吸短促患者的数据。建立了以危及生命事件为结局的4个logistic回归模型。我们从一个年龄和性别的模型(模型1)开始,并先后添加了呼叫特征(在晚上打电话,其他人代表病人打电话;模型2)、症状(咳嗽、发热、不能说完整的句子和喘息);模型3),病史和用药情况(心血管和/或肺部;模型4)。通过1000次重复的bootstrap乐观修正对模型进行内部验证。确定了判别(c-statistic)和校准(校准截距和斜率)的性能度量。结果:大约17%的呼叫者出现了危及生命的事件。Model 3表现最好。该模型具有良好的判别能力(内部验证c统计量为0.764 (95% CI: 0.739 ~ 0.792)),且校准良好。与不使用模型相比,所有模型都具有较高的净效益。模型3和模型4的净效益高于模型1和模型2。由于模型3和模型4的净效益相似,所以优选参数较少的模型(模型3)。结论:一个由年龄、性别、呼叫特征和症状组成的预测模型有望改善呼叫者在非工作时间呼吸短促的电话分诊。
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
British Journal of General Practice
British Journal of General Practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
10.20%
发文量
681
期刊介绍: The British Journal of General Practice is an international journal publishing research, editorials, debate and analysis, and clinical guidance for family practitioners and primary care researchers worldwide. BJGP began in 1953 as the ‘College of General Practitioners’ Research Newsletter’, with the ‘Journal of the College of General Practitioners’ first appearing in 1960. Following the change in status of the College, the ‘Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners’ was launched in 1967. Three editors later, in 1990, the title was changed to the ‘British Journal of General Practice’. The journal is commonly referred to as the ''BJGP'', and is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Artificial Intelligence for early detection of lung cancer in General Practitioners' clinical notes. Patients' perceptions on reasons for self-referring to the emergency department shortly before cancer diagnosis: a qualitative study. Patterns in GP Appointment Systems: a cluster analysis of 3480 English practices. Physical Activity Program among Cancer Survivors in General Practice: Evaluating Patient Outcomes. Qualitative assessment of physicians' appraisal of parental concerns.
×
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