在亚洲急诊科使用STONE评分预测尿石症

IF 0.8 Q4 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Journal of acute medicine Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.6705/j.jacme.202206_12(2).0002
Joo Shiang Ang, Su Yee Vanice Wong, Chee Kheong Ooi
{"title":"在亚洲急诊科使用STONE评分预测尿石症","authors":"Joo Shiang Ang,&nbsp;Su Yee Vanice Wong,&nbsp;Chee Kheong Ooi","doi":"10.6705/j.jacme.202206_12(2).0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The STONE score was developed to predict uncomplicated ureteral stones in patients so that they can be managed without imaging. Validation studies had been conducted previously but the results were varied. This study aims to investigate the utility of the STONE score in an emergency department in Singapore.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed the records of adult patients presenting with ureteric colic in the emergency department in 2015. STONE score as well as the proportion of urolithiasis diagnosed on advanced imaging in each STONE score group were calculated. Logistic regression was used to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) for the STONE score components in our study and compared with the ORs obtained in the original study. Measures of diagnostic accuracy for a high STONE score were also calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>753 cases were included in the final analysis. Among patients with a high STONE score, 66.7% had urolithiasis and 2.6% had significant alternative diagnoses. Compared to original studies, ORs for the STONE score components obtained for our study were different. From our study, the sensitivity of a high STONE score was 47.0%, specificity was 68.7%, positive predictive value was 66.7%, negative predictive value was 49.3%, positive likelihood ratio was 1.50, and negative likelihood ratio was 0.77.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The STONE score is not expected to perform well in Singapore based on our study. It should be used with caution in similar Asian populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":14846,"journal":{"name":"Journal of acute medicine","volume":"12 2","pages":"53-59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9283116/pdf/jacme-12-2-02.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of STONE Score to Predict Urolithiasis in an Asian Emergency Department.\",\"authors\":\"Joo Shiang Ang,&nbsp;Su Yee Vanice Wong,&nbsp;Chee Kheong Ooi\",\"doi\":\"10.6705/j.jacme.202206_12(2).0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The STONE score was developed to predict uncomplicated ureteral stones in patients so that they can be managed without imaging. Validation studies had been conducted previously but the results were varied. This study aims to investigate the utility of the STONE score in an emergency department in Singapore.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed the records of adult patients presenting with ureteric colic in the emergency department in 2015. STONE score as well as the proportion of urolithiasis diagnosed on advanced imaging in each STONE score group were calculated. Logistic regression was used to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) for the STONE score components in our study and compared with the ORs obtained in the original study. Measures of diagnostic accuracy for a high STONE score were also calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>753 cases were included in the final analysis. Among patients with a high STONE score, 66.7% had urolithiasis and 2.6% had significant alternative diagnoses. Compared to original studies, ORs for the STONE score components obtained for our study were different. From our study, the sensitivity of a high STONE score was 47.0%, specificity was 68.7%, positive predictive value was 66.7%, negative predictive value was 49.3%, positive likelihood ratio was 1.50, and negative likelihood ratio was 0.77.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The STONE score is not expected to perform well in Singapore based on our study. It should be used with caution in similar Asian populations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14846,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of acute medicine\",\"volume\":\"12 2\",\"pages\":\"53-59\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9283116/pdf/jacme-12-2-02.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of acute medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6705/j.jacme.202206_12(2).0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of acute medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6705/j.jacme.202206_12(2).0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:STONE评分是用来预测患者的非复杂性输尿管结石,以便在没有影像学检查的情况下进行治疗。之前已经进行了验证研究,但结果各不相同。本研究旨在调查STONE评分在新加坡急诊科的效用。方法:回顾性分析2015年急诊收治的输尿管绞痛成年患者的临床资料。计算各STONE评分组的STONE评分及晚期影像学诊断尿石症的比例。使用Logistic回归计算本研究中STONE评分成分的比值比(or),并与原始研究中获得的or进行比较。还计算了高结石评分的诊断准确性。结果:753例纳入最终分析。在STONE评分高的患者中,66.7%有尿石症,2.6%有显著的其他诊断。与原始研究相比,本研究获得的STONE评分组成部分的or有所不同。从我们的研究来看,高STONE评分的敏感性为47.0%,特异性为68.7%,阳性预测值为66.7%,阴性预测值为49.3%,阳性似然比为1.50,阴性似然比为0.77。结论:根据我们的研究,STONE评分在新加坡的表现并不理想。在相似的亚洲人群中应谨慎使用。
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
Use of STONE Score to Predict Urolithiasis in an Asian Emergency Department.

Background: The STONE score was developed to predict uncomplicated ureteral stones in patients so that they can be managed without imaging. Validation studies had been conducted previously but the results were varied. This study aims to investigate the utility of the STONE score in an emergency department in Singapore.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the records of adult patients presenting with ureteric colic in the emergency department in 2015. STONE score as well as the proportion of urolithiasis diagnosed on advanced imaging in each STONE score group were calculated. Logistic regression was used to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) for the STONE score components in our study and compared with the ORs obtained in the original study. Measures of diagnostic accuracy for a high STONE score were also calculated.

Results: 753 cases were included in the final analysis. Among patients with a high STONE score, 66.7% had urolithiasis and 2.6% had significant alternative diagnoses. Compared to original studies, ORs for the STONE score components obtained for our study were different. From our study, the sensitivity of a high STONE score was 47.0%, specificity was 68.7%, positive predictive value was 66.7%, negative predictive value was 49.3%, positive likelihood ratio was 1.50, and negative likelihood ratio was 0.77.

Conclusion: The STONE score is not expected to perform well in Singapore based on our study. It should be used with caution in similar Asian populations.

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
Journal of acute medicine
Journal of acute medicine EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
International Collaboration in Taiwan Emergency Department Publications: A Social Network Analysis. Left Ventricular Perforation Following Transcutaneous Pigtail Catheter Placement Mimicking Anterior Wall Myocardial Infarction: An Unusual Complication. Review of Emamectin Benzoate Poisoning. The Effect of a Separate Flow of Patients With Small Traumatic Injuries on Consult Time and Patient Satisfaction: A Retrospective Cohort Study During COVID-19 in the Emergency Department. Woman With Recurrent Syncope.
×
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