社区获得性肺炎:急诊科三种死亡率预测评分的比较

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Colombia Medica Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI:10.25100/cm.v52i4.4287
Carolina Hincapié, Johana Ascuntar, Alba León, Fabián Jaimes
{"title":"社区获得性肺炎:急诊科三种死亡率预测评分的比较","authors":"Carolina Hincapié,&nbsp;Johana Ascuntar,&nbsp;Alba León,&nbsp;Fabián Jaimes","doi":"10.25100/cm.v52i4.4287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>qSOFA is a score to identify patients with suspected infection and risk of complications. Its criteria are like those evaluated in prognostic scores for pneumonia (CRB-65 - CURB-65), but it is not clear which is best for predicting mortality and admission to the ICU.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare three scores (CURB-65, CRB-65 and qSOFA) to determine the best tool to identify emergency department patients with pneumonia at increased risk of mortality or intensive care unit (ICU) admission.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Secondary analysis of three prospective cohorts of patients hospitalized with diagnosis of pneumonia in five Colombian hospitals. Validation and comparison of the score´s accuracies were performed by means of discrimination and calibration measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cohorts 1, 2 and 3 included 158, 745 and 207 patients, with mortality rates of 32.3%, 17.2% and 18.4%, and admission to ICU was required for 52.5%, 43.5% and 25.6%, respectively. The best AUC-ROC for mortality was for CURB-65 in cohort 3 (AUC-ROC=0.67). The calibration was adequate (p>0.05) for the three scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>None of these scores proved to be an appropriate predictor for mortality and admission to the ICU. Furthermore, the CRB 65 exhibited the lowest discriminative ability.</p>","PeriodicalId":50667,"journal":{"name":"Colombia Medica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d9/4e/1657-9534-cm-52-04-e2044287.PMC9015018.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Community-acquired pneumonia: comparison of three mortality prediction scores in the emergency department.\",\"authors\":\"Carolina Hincapié,&nbsp;Johana Ascuntar,&nbsp;Alba León,&nbsp;Fabián Jaimes\",\"doi\":\"10.25100/cm.v52i4.4287\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>qSOFA is a score to identify patients with suspected infection and risk of complications. Its criteria are like those evaluated in prognostic scores for pneumonia (CRB-65 - CURB-65), but it is not clear which is best for predicting mortality and admission to the ICU.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare three scores (CURB-65, CRB-65 and qSOFA) to determine the best tool to identify emergency department patients with pneumonia at increased risk of mortality or intensive care unit (ICU) admission.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Secondary analysis of three prospective cohorts of patients hospitalized with diagnosis of pneumonia in five Colombian hospitals. Validation and comparison of the score´s accuracies were performed by means of discrimination and calibration measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cohorts 1, 2 and 3 included 158, 745 and 207 patients, with mortality rates of 32.3%, 17.2% and 18.4%, and admission to ICU was required for 52.5%, 43.5% and 25.6%, respectively. The best AUC-ROC for mortality was for CURB-65 in cohort 3 (AUC-ROC=0.67). The calibration was adequate (p>0.05) for the three scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>None of these scores proved to be an appropriate predictor for mortality and admission to the ICU. Furthermore, the CRB 65 exhibited the lowest discriminative ability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50667,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Colombia Medica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d9/4e/1657-9534-cm-52-04-e2044287.PMC9015018.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Colombia Medica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v52i4.4287\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Colombia Medica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v52i4.4287","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:qSOFA是一种识别疑似感染患者和并发症风险的评分方法。其标准类似于肺炎预后评分(CRB-65 - CURB-65),但尚不清楚哪一种最适合预测死亡率和ICU入院率。目的:比较三个评分(CURB-65、CRB-65和qSOFA),以确定识别急诊科肺炎患者死亡风险增加或入住重症监护病房(ICU)的最佳工具。方法:对哥伦比亚五家医院诊断为肺炎住院患者的三个前瞻性队列进行二次分析。通过判别和校准措施对评分的准确性进行验证和比较。结果:1、2、3组共158例、745例和207例患者,死亡率分别为32.3%、17.2%和18.4%,需要住院的患者分别为52.5%、43.5%和25.6%。在队列3中,CURB-65患者的死亡率AUC-ROC最高(AUC-ROC=0.67)。三个评分的校正是充分的(p>0.05)。结论:这些评分均不能作为死亡率和ICU入院的适当预测指标。此外,crb65表现出最低的辨别能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Community-acquired pneumonia: comparison of three mortality prediction scores in the emergency department.

Background: qSOFA is a score to identify patients with suspected infection and risk of complications. Its criteria are like those evaluated in prognostic scores for pneumonia (CRB-65 - CURB-65), but it is not clear which is best for predicting mortality and admission to the ICU.

Objective: Compare three scores (CURB-65, CRB-65 and qSOFA) to determine the best tool to identify emergency department patients with pneumonia at increased risk of mortality or intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

Methods: Secondary analysis of three prospective cohorts of patients hospitalized with diagnosis of pneumonia in five Colombian hospitals. Validation and comparison of the score´s accuracies were performed by means of discrimination and calibration measures.

Results: Cohorts 1, 2 and 3 included 158, 745 and 207 patients, with mortality rates of 32.3%, 17.2% and 18.4%, and admission to ICU was required for 52.5%, 43.5% and 25.6%, respectively. The best AUC-ROC for mortality was for CURB-65 in cohort 3 (AUC-ROC=0.67). The calibration was adequate (p>0.05) for the three scores.

Conclusions: None of these scores proved to be an appropriate predictor for mortality and admission to the ICU. Furthermore, the CRB 65 exhibited the lowest discriminative ability.

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
Colombia Medica
Colombia Medica MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Colombia Médica is an international peer-reviewed medical journal that will consider any original contribution that advances or illuminates medical science or practice, or that educates to the journal''s’ readers.The journal is owned by a non-profit organization, Universidad del Valle, and serves the scientific community strictly following the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) recommendations of policies on publication ethics policies for medical journals. Colombia Médica publishes original research articles, viewpoints and reviews in all areas of medical science and clinical practice. However, Colombia Médica gives the highest priority to papers on general and internal medicine, public health and primary health care.
期刊最新文献
El hilo de Ariadna en la era de la inteligencia artificial: paralelismos entre el mito griego y las recomendaciones de WAME Evidence-based practice in respiratory healthcare professionals in Latin America: Content quality and reliability of the YouTube videos about chronic prostatitis Effects of central intermittent theta-burst stimulation combined with repetitive peripheral magnetic stimulation on upper limb function in stroke patients. Artificial intelligence in scientific writing: What are the ethical boundaries? - A Reflection inspired by the myth of Prometheus.
×
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