CT检查判定规则在颅脑损伤儿童中的适用性

R. Zhen, Gui-long Feng, Kai Fan, Wei-jing Wen, Rui Zhang, Yuanwei Fu, Weizong Liu
{"title":"CT检查判定规则在颅脑损伤儿童中的适用性","authors":"R. Zhen, Gui-long Feng, Kai Fan, Wei-jing Wen, Rui Zhang, Yuanwei Fu, Weizong Liu","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1671-0282.2019.08.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo explore the applicability of the three commonly used CT examination decision rules in Chinese head injured children. \n \n \nMethods \nThis prospective observational study included 1 538 children and adolescents (aged <18 years), who were treated at the Emergency Department of First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University after head injuries. The three clinical decision rules include the Children’s Head Injury Algorithm for the Prediction of Important Clinical Events (CHALICE; UK); the prediction rule for the identification of children at very low risk of clinically important traumatic brain injury, that was developed by the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN; USA), and the Canadian Assessment of Tomography for Childhood Head Injury (CATCH) rule. Diagnostic accuracy had been evaluated by using the rule-specific predictor variables to predict each rule-specific outcome measure in populations who met inclusion and exclusion criteria for each rule. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and ROC curve were referred to the diagnostic accuracy. Indicators were characterized by 95% CI. \n \n \nResults \nOf the 1 538 patients, CTs were obtained for 339 patients (22.04%). Forty-nine patients (3.19%) had positive CT results, 8 patients (0.52%) underwent neurosurgery, 2 patients (0.13%) died, and 1 patient (0.07%) may be missed. In this study, CHALICE was applied for 1 394 children (90.70%; 95% CI: 89.24%-92.15%), PECARN for 801 children (52.11%; 95% CI: 49.62%-54.61%), and CATCH for 325 patients (21.15%; 95% CI: 19.10%-23.19%). The validation sensitivities of CHALICE, PECARN, and CATCH rules were 92.6% (74.2%-98.7%), 100% (56.1%-100%), and 85.7% (42.0%-99.2%), respectively; the specificities were 78.1% (75.7%-80.2%), 48.0% (44.5%-51.5%) and 70.8% (65.4%-75.6%); positive predictive value were 7.7% (5.1%-11.3%), 0.9% (0.4%-1.9%) and 6.1% (2.5%-13.2%); and negative predictive value were 99.8% (99.2%-100%), 99.1% (98.1%-99.6%), and 99.6% (97.2%-100%), respectively. \n \n \nConclusions \nThe clinical decision rules of CHALICE, PECARN and CATCH have high sensitivities. The specificity of PECARN rule is lower than those of CHALICE and CATCH rules. The above three clinical decision rules can be used for the decision of CT examination in Chinese children with head injury in practice. \n \n \nKey words: \nChildren; Head trauma; CT examination; Clinical decision rules; Applicability; CATCH; PECARN; CHALICE","PeriodicalId":9981,"journal":{"name":"中华急诊医学杂志","volume":"28 1","pages":"956-961"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applicability of CT examination decision rules in head injured children\",\"authors\":\"R. Zhen, Gui-long Feng, Kai Fan, Wei-jing Wen, Rui Zhang, Yuanwei Fu, Weizong Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1671-0282.2019.08.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective \\nTo explore the applicability of the three commonly used CT examination decision rules in Chinese head injured children. \\n \\n \\nMethods \\nThis prospective observational study included 1 538 children and adolescents (aged <18 years), who were treated at the Emergency Department of First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University after head injuries. The three clinical decision rules include the Children’s Head Injury Algorithm for the Prediction of Important Clinical Events (CHALICE; UK); the prediction rule for the identification of children at very low risk of clinically important traumatic brain injury, that was developed by the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN; USA), and the Canadian Assessment of Tomography for Childhood Head Injury (CATCH) rule. Diagnostic accuracy had been evaluated by using the rule-specific predictor variables to predict each rule-specific outcome measure in populations who met inclusion and exclusion criteria for each rule. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and ROC curve were referred to the diagnostic accuracy. Indicators were characterized by 95% CI. \\n \\n \\nResults \\nOf the 1 538 patients, CTs were obtained for 339 patients (22.04%). Forty-nine patients (3.19%) had positive CT results, 8 patients (0.52%) underwent neurosurgery, 2 patients (0.13%) died, and 1 patient (0.07%) may be missed. In this study, CHALICE was applied for 1 394 children (90.70%; 95% CI: 89.24%-92.15%), PECARN for 801 children (52.11%; 95% CI: 49.62%-54.61%), and CATCH for 325 patients (21.15%; 95% CI: 19.10%-23.19%). The validation sensitivities of CHALICE, PECARN, and CATCH rules were 92.6% (74.2%-98.7%), 100% (56.1%-100%), and 85.7% (42.0%-99.2%), respectively; the specificities were 78.1% (75.7%-80.2%), 48.0% (44.5%-51.5%) and 70.8% (65.4%-75.6%); positive predictive value were 7.7% (5.1%-11.3%), 0.9% (0.4%-1.9%) and 6.1% (2.5%-13.2%); and negative predictive value were 99.8% (99.2%-100%), 99.1% (98.1%-99.6%), and 99.6% (97.2%-100%), respectively. \\n \\n \\nConclusions \\nThe clinical decision rules of CHALICE, PECARN and CATCH have high sensitivities. The specificity of PECARN rule is lower than those of CHALICE and CATCH rules. The above three clinical decision rules can be used for the decision of CT examination in Chinese children with head injury in practice. \\n \\n \\nKey words: \\nChildren; Head trauma; CT examination; Clinical decision rules; Applicability; CATCH; PECARN; CHALICE\",\"PeriodicalId\":9981,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"中华急诊医学杂志\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"956-961\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"中华急诊医学杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1671-0282.2019.08.008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华急诊医学杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1671-0282.2019.08.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的探讨三种常用CT检查决策规则在中国颅脑损伤儿童中的适用性。方法采用前瞻性观察性研究方法,对山西医科大学第一医院急诊科收治的1 538名18岁以下儿童和青少年进行调查。三个临床决策规则包括:儿童头部损伤重要临床事件预测算法(CHALICE;英国);由儿科急诊应用研究网络(PECARN;美国)开发的用于识别临床重要创伤性脑损伤风险非常低的儿童的预测规则,以及加拿大儿童头部损伤断层扫描评估(CATCH)规则。通过使用特定规则的预测变量来预测符合每个规则的纳入和排除标准的人群中的每个特定规则的结果测量,来评估诊断准确性。敏感性、特异性、阴性预测值(NPV)、阳性预测值(PPV)和ROC曲线是指诊断准确性。结果在1538例患者中,339例(22.04%)获得了CT。49例(3.19%)患者的CT结果呈阳性,8例(0.52%)患者接受了神经外科手术,2例(0.13%)患者死亡,1例(0.07%)可能遗漏。在这项研究中,CHALICE应用于1 394名儿童(90.70%;95%可信区间:89.24%-92.15%),PECARN应用于801名儿童(52.11%;95%置信区间:49.62%-54.61%),CATCH应用于325名患者(21.15%;95%信息:19.10%-23.19%)。CHALICE、PECARN和CATCH规则的验证敏感性分别为92.6%(74.2%-98.7%)、100%(56.1%-100%)和85.7%(42.0%-99.2%);特异性分别为78.1%(75.7%-80.2%)、48.0%(44.5%-51.5%)和70.8%(65.4%-75.6%);阳性预测值分别为7.7%(5.1%-11.3%)、0.9%(0.4%-1.9%)和6.1%(2.5%-13.2%);阴性预测值分别为99.8%(99.2%-100%)、99.1%(98.1%-99.6%)和99.6%(97.2%~100%)。结论CHALICE、PECARN和CATCH的临床决策规则具有较高的敏感性。PECARN规则的特异性低于CHALICE和CATCH规则。以上三条临床决策规则可用于中国儿童颅脑损伤CT检查的决策。关键词:儿童;头部创伤;CT检查;临床决策规则;适用性;捕获;PECARN;圣杯
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
Applicability of CT examination decision rules in head injured children
Objective To explore the applicability of the three commonly used CT examination decision rules in Chinese head injured children. Methods This prospective observational study included 1 538 children and adolescents (aged <18 years), who were treated at the Emergency Department of First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University after head injuries. The three clinical decision rules include the Children’s Head Injury Algorithm for the Prediction of Important Clinical Events (CHALICE; UK); the prediction rule for the identification of children at very low risk of clinically important traumatic brain injury, that was developed by the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN; USA), and the Canadian Assessment of Tomography for Childhood Head Injury (CATCH) rule. Diagnostic accuracy had been evaluated by using the rule-specific predictor variables to predict each rule-specific outcome measure in populations who met inclusion and exclusion criteria for each rule. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and ROC curve were referred to the diagnostic accuracy. Indicators were characterized by 95% CI. Results Of the 1 538 patients, CTs were obtained for 339 patients (22.04%). Forty-nine patients (3.19%) had positive CT results, 8 patients (0.52%) underwent neurosurgery, 2 patients (0.13%) died, and 1 patient (0.07%) may be missed. In this study, CHALICE was applied for 1 394 children (90.70%; 95% CI: 89.24%-92.15%), PECARN for 801 children (52.11%; 95% CI: 49.62%-54.61%), and CATCH for 325 patients (21.15%; 95% CI: 19.10%-23.19%). The validation sensitivities of CHALICE, PECARN, and CATCH rules were 92.6% (74.2%-98.7%), 100% (56.1%-100%), and 85.7% (42.0%-99.2%), respectively; the specificities were 78.1% (75.7%-80.2%), 48.0% (44.5%-51.5%) and 70.8% (65.4%-75.6%); positive predictive value were 7.7% (5.1%-11.3%), 0.9% (0.4%-1.9%) and 6.1% (2.5%-13.2%); and negative predictive value were 99.8% (99.2%-100%), 99.1% (98.1%-99.6%), and 99.6% (97.2%-100%), respectively. Conclusions The clinical decision rules of CHALICE, PECARN and CATCH have high sensitivities. The specificity of PECARN rule is lower than those of CHALICE and CATCH rules. The above three clinical decision rules can be used for the decision of CT examination in Chinese children with head injury in practice. Key words: Children; Head trauma; CT examination; Clinical decision rules; Applicability; CATCH; PECARN; CHALICE
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
中华急诊医学杂志
中华急诊医学杂志 Nursing-Emergency Nursing
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8629
期刊介绍: Chinese Journal of Emergency Medicine is the only national journal which represents the development of emergency medicine in China. The journal is supervised by China Association of Science and Technology, sponsored by Chinese Medical Association, and co-sponsored by Zhejiang University. The journal publishes original research articles dealing with all aspects of clinical practice and research in emergency medicine. The columns include Pre-Hospital Rescue, Emergency Care, Trauma, Resuscitation, Poisoning, Disaster Medicine, Continuing Education, etc. It has a wide coverage in China, and builds up communication with Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and international emergency medicine circles.
期刊最新文献
The value of ROX index in evaluating the efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in patients with COVID-19 The prognosis evaluation of sICAM-1, KL-6 combined with EVLWI in severe pneumonia patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome Analysis of clinical features of 58 patients with severe or critical 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia Construction of 5G intelligent medical service system in novel coronavirus pneumonia prevention and control/ 中华急诊医学杂志 Pediatric Airway Foreign Body Retrieval During the Prevention and Control of 2019 Novel Coronavirus
×
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