使用移动应用程序获得的美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表分数与传统纸质表格的比较:一项随机对照验证研究

IF 1.4 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Innovations Pub Date : 2022-06-16 DOI:10.1136/bmjinnov-2022-000968
H. Bugge, M. Guterud, J. Røislien, K. Larsen, H. Ihle-Hansen, M. Toft, M. R. Hov, E. Sandset
{"title":"使用移动应用程序获得的美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表分数与传统纸质表格的比较:一项随机对照验证研究","authors":"H. Bugge, M. Guterud, J. Røislien, K. Larsen, H. Ihle-Hansen, M. Toft, M. R. Hov, E. Sandset","doi":"10.1136/bmjinnov-2022-000968","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Prehospital delay contributes to treatment delay in acute stroke. Numerous prehospital stroke scales exist for stroke identification, but they lack the diagnostic accuracy of the in-hospital National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). We have developed a mobile application to aid paramedics assessing prehospital NIHSS. This study explores agreement between NIHSS scores obtained using the Paramedic Norwegian Acute Stroke Prehospital Project (ParaNASPP) application compared with conventional assessment. Methods 25 physicians working with stroke were randomised to an application group or control. 20 unique videos portraying acute stroke symptoms were scored by both groups. 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated using Bland-Altman’s method, comparing the groups to predefined scores, and each other. LoAs within ±3 NIHSS points were considered acceptable. Cohen’s kappa was calculated on dichotomised NIHSS scores. Results The ParaNASPP application group had 95% LoA of −2.33 to 2.71. The control group had LoA of −2.60 to 2.55. Direct comparison between the groups gave LoA of −3.12 to 3.55. When compared with the dichotomised predefined scores kappa was 0.93 in the application group and 0.89 in the control group. Kappa was 0.84 for direct comparison between the groups. Discussion There was very good agreement between the application and both the predefined score and the control group. Scores from the ParaNASPP application differ slightly more than our predefined goal when compared with the control group, but is well within when compared with the predefined NIHSS scores. We consider this acceptable and the ParaNASPP application validated for further clinical studies.","PeriodicalId":53454,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Innovations","volume":"41 1","pages":"57 - 63"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores obtained using a mobile application compared to the conventional paper form: a randomised controlled validation study\",\"authors\":\"H. Bugge, M. Guterud, J. Røislien, K. Larsen, H. Ihle-Hansen, M. Toft, M. R. Hov, E. Sandset\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjinnov-2022-000968\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Prehospital delay contributes to treatment delay in acute stroke. Numerous prehospital stroke scales exist for stroke identification, but they lack the diagnostic accuracy of the in-hospital National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). We have developed a mobile application to aid paramedics assessing prehospital NIHSS. This study explores agreement between NIHSS scores obtained using the Paramedic Norwegian Acute Stroke Prehospital Project (ParaNASPP) application compared with conventional assessment. Methods 25 physicians working with stroke were randomised to an application group or control. 20 unique videos portraying acute stroke symptoms were scored by both groups. 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated using Bland-Altman’s method, comparing the groups to predefined scores, and each other. LoAs within ±3 NIHSS points were considered acceptable. Cohen’s kappa was calculated on dichotomised NIHSS scores. Results The ParaNASPP application group had 95% LoA of −2.33 to 2.71. The control group had LoA of −2.60 to 2.55. Direct comparison between the groups gave LoA of −3.12 to 3.55. When compared with the dichotomised predefined scores kappa was 0.93 in the application group and 0.89 in the control group. Kappa was 0.84 for direct comparison between the groups. Discussion There was very good agreement between the application and both the predefined score and the control group. Scores from the ParaNASPP application differ slightly more than our predefined goal when compared with the control group, but is well within when compared with the predefined NIHSS scores. We consider this acceptable and the ParaNASPP application validated for further clinical studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53454,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Innovations\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"57 - 63\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Innovations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2022-000968\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Innovations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2022-000968","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

院前延迟导致急性脑卒中治疗延迟。许多院前卒中量表用于卒中识别,但它们缺乏院内国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)的诊断准确性。我们开发了一个移动应用程序来帮助护理人员评估院前NIHSS。本研究探讨了使用护理人员挪威急性卒中院前项目(ParaNASPP)应用程序获得的NIHSS评分与传统评估之间的一致性。方法将25名治疗脑卒中的医生随机分为应用组和对照组。两组分别对20个描述急性中风症状的独特视频进行评分。使用Bland-Altman方法计算95%的一致限度(LoA),将各组与预定义分数进行比较,并相互比较。在±3 NIHSS点以内的LoAs被认为是可以接受的。Cohen的kappa是根据NIHSS的二分分数计算的。结果应用ParaNASPP组95% LoA为- 2.33 ~ 2.71。对照组的LoA为−2.60 ~ 2.55。组间直接比较LoA为- 3.12 ~ 3.55。与二分类的预定义分数相比,应用组的kappa为0.93,对照组为0.89。组间直接比较Kappa为0.84。应用程序与预定义分数和对照组之间的一致性非常好。与对照组相比,ParaNASPP应用程序的分数与我们预定的目标略有不同,但与预定的NIHSS分数相比,相差不大。我们认为这是可以接受的,并且ParaNASPP的应用验证了进一步的临床研究。
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
National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores obtained using a mobile application compared to the conventional paper form: a randomised controlled validation study
Background Prehospital delay contributes to treatment delay in acute stroke. Numerous prehospital stroke scales exist for stroke identification, but they lack the diagnostic accuracy of the in-hospital National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). We have developed a mobile application to aid paramedics assessing prehospital NIHSS. This study explores agreement between NIHSS scores obtained using the Paramedic Norwegian Acute Stroke Prehospital Project (ParaNASPP) application compared with conventional assessment. Methods 25 physicians working with stroke were randomised to an application group or control. 20 unique videos portraying acute stroke symptoms were scored by both groups. 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated using Bland-Altman’s method, comparing the groups to predefined scores, and each other. LoAs within ±3 NIHSS points were considered acceptable. Cohen’s kappa was calculated on dichotomised NIHSS scores. Results The ParaNASPP application group had 95% LoA of −2.33 to 2.71. The control group had LoA of −2.60 to 2.55. Direct comparison between the groups gave LoA of −3.12 to 3.55. When compared with the dichotomised predefined scores kappa was 0.93 in the application group and 0.89 in the control group. Kappa was 0.84 for direct comparison between the groups. Discussion There was very good agreement between the application and both the predefined score and the control group. Scores from the ParaNASPP application differ slightly more than our predefined goal when compared with the control group, but is well within when compared with the predefined NIHSS scores. We consider this acceptable and the ParaNASPP application validated for further clinical studies.
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
BMJ Innovations
BMJ Innovations Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
期刊介绍: Healthcare is undergoing a revolution and novel medical technologies are being developed to treat patients in better and faster ways. Mobile revolution has put a handheld computer in pockets of billions and we are ushering in an era of mHealth. In developed and developing world alike healthcare costs are a concern and frugal innovations are being promoted for bringing down the costs of healthcare. BMJ Innovations aims to promote innovative research which creates new, cost-effective medical devices, technologies, processes and systems that improve patient care, with particular focus on the needs of patients, physicians, and the health care industry as a whole and act as a platform to catalyse and seed more innovations. Submissions to BMJ Innovations will be considered from all clinical areas of medicine along with business and process innovations that make healthcare accessible and affordable. Submissions from groups of investigators engaged in international collaborations are especially encouraged. The broad areas of innovations that this journal aims to chronicle include but are not limited to: Medical devices, mHealth and wearable health technologies, Assistive technologies, Diagnostics, Health IT, systems and process innovation.
期刊最新文献
Biomechanical analysis of delivering chest compressions in virtual reality simulation: preliminary insights into fidelity and validity of virtual reality as a means of delivering life support training iCount: a human-factors engineered solution to vaginal swab retention – an early-stage innovation report Spreading and scaling innovation and improvement: understanding why the differences matter Role of twinnings in scaling up innovative solutions across Europe Wings of Healing: regulatory landscape, case studies and the Indian prologue of drones in healthcare
×
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