动物创伤分类评分和改良格拉斯哥昏迷量表在受伤猫中的表现评估和验证:创伤兽医委员会登记研究。

J. Lapsley, G. Hayes, J. Sumner
{"title":"动物创伤分类评分和改良格拉斯哥昏迷量表在受伤猫中的表现评估和验证:创伤兽医委员会登记研究。","authors":"J. Lapsley, G. Hayes, J. Sumner","doi":"10.1111/vec.12885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVES\nTo examine the Animal Trauma Triage (ATT) and modified Glasgow Coma Scale (mGCS) scores as predictors of mortality in injured cats.\n\n\nDESIGN\nObservational cohort study conducted September 2013 to March 2015.\n\n\nSETTING\nNine Level I and II veterinary trauma centers.\n\n\nANIMALS\nConsecutive sample of 711 cats reported on the Veterinary Committee on Trauma (VetCOT) case registry.\n\n\nINTERVENTIONS\nNone.\n\n\nMEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS\nWe compared the predictive power (area under receiver operating characteristic curve; AUROC) and calibration of the ATT and mGCS scores to their components. Overall mortality risk was 16.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.9-19.4). Head trauma prevalence was 11.8% (n = 84). The ATT score showed a linear relationship with mortality risk. Discriminatory performance of the ATT score was excellent (AUROC = 0.87 [95% CI, 0.84-0.90]). Each ATT score increase of 1 point was associated with an increase in mortality odds of 1.78 (95% CI, 1.61-1.97, P < 0.001). The eye/muscle/integument category of the ATT showed the lowest discrimination (AUROC = 0.60). When this component, skeletal, and cardiac components were omitted from score calculation, there was no loss in discriminatory capacity compared with the full score (AUROC = 0.86 vs 0.87, respectively, P = 0.66). The mGCS showed fair performance overall for prediction of mortality, but the point estimate of performance improved when restricted to head trauma patients (AUROC = 0.75, 95% CI, 0.70-0.80 vs AUROC = 0.80, 95% CI, 0.70-0.90). The motor component of the mGCS showed the best predictive performance (AUROC = 0.71); however, the full score performed better than the motor component alone (P = 0.004). When assessment was restricted to patients with head injury (n = 84), there was no difference in performance between the ATT and mGCS scores (AUROC = 0.82 vs 0.80, P = 0.67).\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nOn a large, multicenter dataset of feline trauma patients, the ATT score showed excellent discrimination and calibration for predicting mortality; however, an abbreviated score calculated from the perfusion, respiratory, and neurologic categories showed equivalent performance.","PeriodicalId":74015,"journal":{"name":"Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/vec.12885","citationCount":"21","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance evaluation and validation of the Animal Trauma Triage score and modified Glasgow Coma Scale in injured cats: A Veterinary Committee on Trauma registry study.\",\"authors\":\"J. Lapsley, G. Hayes, J. Sumner\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/vec.12885\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVES\\nTo examine the Animal Trauma Triage (ATT) and modified Glasgow Coma Scale (mGCS) scores as predictors of mortality in injured cats.\\n\\n\\nDESIGN\\nObservational cohort study conducted September 2013 to March 2015.\\n\\n\\nSETTING\\nNine Level I and II veterinary trauma centers.\\n\\n\\nANIMALS\\nConsecutive sample of 711 cats reported on the Veterinary Committee on Trauma (VetCOT) case registry.\\n\\n\\nINTERVENTIONS\\nNone.\\n\\n\\nMEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS\\nWe compared the predictive power (area under receiver operating characteristic curve; AUROC) and calibration of the ATT and mGCS scores to their components. Overall mortality risk was 16.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.9-19.4). Head trauma prevalence was 11.8% (n = 84). The ATT score showed a linear relationship with mortality risk. Discriminatory performance of the ATT score was excellent (AUROC = 0.87 [95% CI, 0.84-0.90]). Each ATT score increase of 1 point was associated with an increase in mortality odds of 1.78 (95% CI, 1.61-1.97, P < 0.001). The eye/muscle/integument category of the ATT showed the lowest discrimination (AUROC = 0.60). When this component, skeletal, and cardiac components were omitted from score calculation, there was no loss in discriminatory capacity compared with the full score (AUROC = 0.86 vs 0.87, respectively, P = 0.66). The mGCS showed fair performance overall for prediction of mortality, but the point estimate of performance improved when restricted to head trauma patients (AUROC = 0.75, 95% CI, 0.70-0.80 vs AUROC = 0.80, 95% CI, 0.70-0.90). The motor component of the mGCS showed the best predictive performance (AUROC = 0.71); however, the full score performed better than the motor component alone (P = 0.004). When assessment was restricted to patients with head injury (n = 84), there was no difference in performance between the ATT and mGCS scores (AUROC = 0.82 vs 0.80, P = 0.67).\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nOn a large, multicenter dataset of feline trauma patients, the ATT score showed excellent discrimination and calibration for predicting mortality; however, an abbreviated score calculated from the perfusion, respiratory, and neurologic categories showed equivalent performance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74015,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/vec.12885\",\"citationCount\":\"21\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/vec.12885\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/vec.12885","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

摘要

目的探讨动物创伤分类(ATT)和改良格拉斯哥昏迷量表(mGCS)评分对受伤猫死亡率的预测作用。设计:观察性队列研究于2013年9月至2015年3月进行。设有9个一、二级兽医创伤中心。动物:在创伤兽医委员会(VetCOT)病例登记中报告的711只猫的连续样本。干预测量和主要结果我们比较了预测能力(受试者工作特征曲线下面积;AUROC),并将ATT和mGCS分数校准到其组成部分。总死亡风险为16.5%(95%可信区间[CI], 13.9-19.4)。头部创伤患病率为11.8% (n = 84)。ATT评分与死亡风险呈线性关系。ATT评分的歧视性表现优异(AUROC = 0.87 [95% CI, 0.84-0.90])。ATT评分每增加1分,死亡几率增加1.78 (95% CI, 1.61 ~ 1.97, P < 0.001)。眼/肌/被膜类别的识别度最低(AUROC = 0.60)。当从评分计算中省略该成分、骨骼成分和心脏成分时,与满分相比,区分能力没有损失(AUROC分别= 0.86 vs 0.87, P = 0.66)。总体而言,mGCS在预测死亡率方面表现良好,但当仅限于头部创伤患者时,性能的点估计有所改善(AUROC = 0.75, 95% CI, 0.70-0.80 vs AUROC = 0.80, 95% CI, 0.70-0.90)。mGCS的运动成分预测效果最好(AUROC = 0.71);然而,满分评分优于单独运动评分(P = 0.004)。当评估仅限于头部损伤患者(n = 84)时,ATT和mGCS评分之间的表现没有差异(AUROC = 0.82 vs 0.80, P = 0.67)。结论在一个大型的、多中心的猫外伤患者数据集中,ATT评分在预测死亡率方面具有良好的辨别和校准能力;然而,从灌注、呼吸和神经分类计算的简短评分显示出相同的表现。
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
Performance evaluation and validation of the Animal Trauma Triage score and modified Glasgow Coma Scale in injured cats: A Veterinary Committee on Trauma registry study.
OBJECTIVES To examine the Animal Trauma Triage (ATT) and modified Glasgow Coma Scale (mGCS) scores as predictors of mortality in injured cats. DESIGN Observational cohort study conducted September 2013 to March 2015. SETTING Nine Level I and II veterinary trauma centers. ANIMALS Consecutive sample of 711 cats reported on the Veterinary Committee on Trauma (VetCOT) case registry. INTERVENTIONS None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS We compared the predictive power (area under receiver operating characteristic curve; AUROC) and calibration of the ATT and mGCS scores to their components. Overall mortality risk was 16.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.9-19.4). Head trauma prevalence was 11.8% (n = 84). The ATT score showed a linear relationship with mortality risk. Discriminatory performance of the ATT score was excellent (AUROC = 0.87 [95% CI, 0.84-0.90]). Each ATT score increase of 1 point was associated with an increase in mortality odds of 1.78 (95% CI, 1.61-1.97, P < 0.001). The eye/muscle/integument category of the ATT showed the lowest discrimination (AUROC = 0.60). When this component, skeletal, and cardiac components were omitted from score calculation, there was no loss in discriminatory capacity compared with the full score (AUROC = 0.86 vs 0.87, respectively, P = 0.66). The mGCS showed fair performance overall for prediction of mortality, but the point estimate of performance improved when restricted to head trauma patients (AUROC = 0.75, 95% CI, 0.70-0.80 vs AUROC = 0.80, 95% CI, 0.70-0.90). The motor component of the mGCS showed the best predictive performance (AUROC = 0.71); however, the full score performed better than the motor component alone (P = 0.004). When assessment was restricted to patients with head injury (n = 84), there was no difference in performance between the ATT and mGCS scores (AUROC = 0.82 vs 0.80, P = 0.67). CONCLUSION On a large, multicenter dataset of feline trauma patients, the ATT score showed excellent discrimination and calibration for predicting mortality; however, an abbreviated score calculated from the perfusion, respiratory, and neurologic categories showed equivalent performance.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Owner experiences with and perceptions of owner-witnessed CPR in veterinary medicine. Development and implementation of a hemovigilance program at a university veterinary teaching hospital. 2022 Update of the Consensus on the Rational Use of Antithrombotics and Thrombolytics in Veterinary Critical Care (CURATIVE) Domain 1- Defining populations at risk. Abstracts from the International Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Symposium, and the European Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Annual Congress 2021. Abstracts from the International Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Symposium, and the European Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care Annual Congress 2020.
×
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