比较三种虚弱量表如何预测肋骨骨折创伤患者的负面结果。

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Journal of Surgical Research Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-16 DOI:10.1016/j.jss.2024.11.016
Lawrence R Feng, Colette Galet, Dionne A Skeete
{"title":"比较三种虚弱量表如何预测肋骨骨折创伤患者的负面结果。","authors":"Lawrence R Feng, Colette Galet, Dionne A Skeete","doi":"10.1016/j.jss.2024.11.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Frailty is a risk factor for adverse outcomes after injury. Herein, we compared three frailty scales: the Canadian Study of Health and Aging clinical frailty scale, the rib fracture frailty index (RFFI) and the modified frailty index-5, to assess which scale is most applicable in predicting risk for negative outcomes in older patients with rib fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients ≥65 admitted for rib fractures were retrospectively scored for frailty using the RFFI, Canadian Study of Health and Aging clinical frailty scale, and modified frailty index-5. Outcomes examined were in-hospital mortality, pneumonia, in-hospital intubation, hospital length of stay, and discharge to skilled nursing facilities. Areas under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were determined for each frailty scale with each outcome. Agreement was determined using Fleiss' Kappa. P <0.05 was considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three hundred forty-one patients were included. All three scales demonstrated similar predictive abilities for the measured outcomes. RFFI predicted mortality and pneumonia 70% of the time. All three scales predicted discharge to skilled nursing facilities 60% of the time. The concordance for all three frailty scales was 241/341 (70.7%). Fleiss Kappa was 0.40 [0.34-0.46] (P < 0.001), indicating a fair to moderate agreement. The predictive ability of all three scales was higher in patients 65-74 y old than in patients ≥75.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, no scale appeared to significantly outperform the others by areas under the curve estimation. Interrater reliability was higher in the 65 to 74-y-old population compared to the 75 and older population.</p>","PeriodicalId":17030,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Research","volume":"305 ","pages":"136-144"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing How Three Frailty Scales Predict Negative Outcomes in Trauma Patients With Rib Fractures.\",\"authors\":\"Lawrence R Feng, Colette Galet, Dionne A Skeete\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jss.2024.11.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Frailty is a risk factor for adverse outcomes after injury. Herein, we compared three frailty scales: the Canadian Study of Health and Aging clinical frailty scale, the rib fracture frailty index (RFFI) and the modified frailty index-5, to assess which scale is most applicable in predicting risk for negative outcomes in older patients with rib fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients ≥65 admitted for rib fractures were retrospectively scored for frailty using the RFFI, Canadian Study of Health and Aging clinical frailty scale, and modified frailty index-5. Outcomes examined were in-hospital mortality, pneumonia, in-hospital intubation, hospital length of stay, and discharge to skilled nursing facilities. Areas under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were determined for each frailty scale with each outcome. Agreement was determined using Fleiss' Kappa. P <0.05 was considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three hundred forty-one patients were included. All three scales demonstrated similar predictive abilities for the measured outcomes. RFFI predicted mortality and pneumonia 70% of the time. All three scales predicted discharge to skilled nursing facilities 60% of the time. The concordance for all three frailty scales was 241/341 (70.7%). Fleiss Kappa was 0.40 [0.34-0.46] (P < 0.001), indicating a fair to moderate agreement. The predictive ability of all three scales was higher in patients 65-74 y old than in patients ≥75.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, no scale appeared to significantly outperform the others by areas under the curve estimation. Interrater reliability was higher in the 65 to 74-y-old population compared to the 75 and older population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17030,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Surgical Research\",\"volume\":\"305 \",\"pages\":\"136-144\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Surgical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2024.11.016\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2024.11.016","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:虚弱是损伤后不良后果的危险因素。在此,我们比较了三种虚弱量表:加拿大健康与老龄化研究临床虚弱量表、肋骨骨折虚弱指数(RFFI)和修改后的虚弱指数-5,以评估哪种量表最适用于预测老年肋骨骨折患者的不良结局风险。方法:采用RFFI、加拿大健康与老龄化研究临床虚弱量表和改良的虚弱指数-5对≥65岁的肋骨骨折患者进行回顾性评分。检查的结果是住院死亡率、肺炎、住院插管、住院时间和出院到熟练护理机构。对每个虚弱量表的每个结果确定曲线下面积、敏感性、特异性、阴性预测值和阳性预测值。使用Fleiss的Kappa确定协议。结果:共纳入341例患者。所有三个量表对测量结果的预测能力相似。RFFI预测死亡率和肺炎的准确率为70%。所有三个量表预测出院到熟练护理机构的时间为60%。三个虚弱量表的一致性为241/341(70.7%)。Fleiss Kappa为0.40 [0.34-0.46](P)结论:总体而言,没有量表在曲线下估计面积上明显优于其他量表。与75岁及以上的人群相比,65岁至74岁人群的互估者可靠性更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparing How Three Frailty Scales Predict Negative Outcomes in Trauma Patients With Rib Fractures.

Introduction: Frailty is a risk factor for adverse outcomes after injury. Herein, we compared three frailty scales: the Canadian Study of Health and Aging clinical frailty scale, the rib fracture frailty index (RFFI) and the modified frailty index-5, to assess which scale is most applicable in predicting risk for negative outcomes in older patients with rib fractures.

Methods: Patients ≥65 admitted for rib fractures were retrospectively scored for frailty using the RFFI, Canadian Study of Health and Aging clinical frailty scale, and modified frailty index-5. Outcomes examined were in-hospital mortality, pneumonia, in-hospital intubation, hospital length of stay, and discharge to skilled nursing facilities. Areas under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value were determined for each frailty scale with each outcome. Agreement was determined using Fleiss' Kappa. P <0.05 was considered significant.

Results: Three hundred forty-one patients were included. All three scales demonstrated similar predictive abilities for the measured outcomes. RFFI predicted mortality and pneumonia 70% of the time. All three scales predicted discharge to skilled nursing facilities 60% of the time. The concordance for all three frailty scales was 241/341 (70.7%). Fleiss Kappa was 0.40 [0.34-0.46] (P < 0.001), indicating a fair to moderate agreement. The predictive ability of all three scales was higher in patients 65-74 y old than in patients ≥75.

Conclusions: Overall, no scale appeared to significantly outperform the others by areas under the curve estimation. Interrater reliability was higher in the 65 to 74-y-old population compared to the 75 and older population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
627
审稿时长
138 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Surgical Research: Clinical and Laboratory Investigation publishes original articles concerned with clinical and laboratory investigations relevant to surgical practice and teaching. The journal emphasizes reports of clinical investigations or fundamental research bearing directly on surgical management that will be of general interest to a broad range of surgeons and surgical researchers. The articles presented need not have been the products of surgeons or of surgical laboratories. The Journal of Surgical Research also features review articles and special articles relating to educational, research, or social issues of interest to the academic surgical community.
期刊最新文献
Reducing Postoperative Opioids in Pediatric Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Retrospective, Single-Center Cohort Study. A Review of Long-Term Outcomes of Liver Transplantation Using Extended Criteria Donors in the United States. Classification Systems of Surgical Complexity: A Scoping Review of the Literature. Recognizing the Need for Goals of Care Conversations Among Critically Ill Surgical Patients. Immunological Analysis of Prognostic Factors in Conversion Surgery Cases for Gastric Cancer.
×
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