A cross-sectional analysis of four common clinical decision rules for pulmonary embolism, Mashhad, Iran.

IF 16.4 1区化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-20 DOI:10.34172/jcvtr.32999

Solmaz Hassani, Neshat Najaf Najafi, Amirhossein Khodadadi, Fahimeh Gandomi, Mahnaz Amini

{"title":"A cross-sectional analysis of four common clinical decision rules for pulmonary embolism, Mashhad, Iran.","authors":"Solmaz Hassani, Neshat Najaf Najafi, Amirhossein Khodadadi, Fahimeh Gandomi, Mahnaz Amini","doi":"10.34172/jcvtr.32999","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially fatal condition. Several non-invasive clinical decision rules (CDRs) were developed for the safe exclusion of PE. All CDRs used to safely rule out PE have been created and tested within hospital or acute care environments. However, CDRs that are designed in one specific setting may not perform as effectively when used in a different setting. In this study, we aimed to compare the performance of four common CDRs; Wells Score, Simplified Wells Score, revised Geneva Score, and simplified revised Geneva Score.Methods: This was a cross-sectional study in which patients suspected of PE presenting to Imam Reza Hospital or Ghaem Hospital were recruited from September 23, 2013, to March 19, 2016 in Mashhad, Iran. The specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy were utilized as metrics to compare the CDRs in our region.Results: Two hundred and forty patients were included in the study. The mean age of patients was 57.91±19.97 years, and 54.16% of them (n=130) were female. 120 patients were confirmed to have PE with CT angiography. Wells score showed the highest sensitivity (90.4%) and revised Geneva score represented the highest specificity (84.9%). The highest accuracy belongs to the simplified Wells score (62.3%).Conclusion: In this study, we demonstrated that the Wells criteria with its high sensitivity, can be used as a score for screening, and the revised Geneva score with its high specificity, can be used in the second stage for healthy people who have been diagnosed as unhealthy by the Wells score.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11489636/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/jcvtr.32999","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a potentially fatal condition. Several non-invasive clinical decision rules (CDRs) were developed for the safe exclusion of PE. All CDRs used to safely rule out PE have been created and tested within hospital or acute care environments. However, CDRs that are designed in one specific setting may not perform as effectively when used in a different setting. In this study, we aimed to compare the performance of four common CDRs; Wells Score, Simplified Wells Score, revised Geneva Score, and simplified revised Geneva Score.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study in which patients suspected of PE presenting to Imam Reza Hospital or Ghaem Hospital were recruited from September 23, 2013, to March 19, 2016 in Mashhad, Iran. The specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy were utilized as metrics to compare the CDRs in our region.

Results: Two hundred and forty patients were included in the study. The mean age of patients was 57.91±19.97 years, and 54.16% of them (n=130) were female. 120 patients were confirmed to have PE with CT angiography. Wells score showed the highest sensitivity (90.4%) and revised Geneva score represented the highest specificity (84.9%). The highest accuracy belongs to the simplified Wells score (62.3%).

Conclusion: In this study, we demonstrated that the Wells criteria with its high sensitivity, can be used as a score for screening, and the revised Geneva score with its high specificity, can be used in the second stage for healthy people who have been diagnosed as unhealthy by the Wells score.

查看原文本刊更多论文

对伊朗马什哈德肺栓塞四种常见临床决策规则的横断面分析。

简介肺栓塞（PE）是一种潜在的致命疾病。为安全排除肺栓塞，已开发出几种非侵入性临床决策规则（CDR）。所有用于安全排除 PE 的 CDR 都是在医院或急症护理环境中创建和测试的。然而，在特定环境中设计的 CDR 在不同环境中使用时可能效果不佳。在本研究中，我们旨在比较四种常见 CDR 的性能：韦尔斯评分、简化韦尔斯评分、修订日内瓦评分和简化修订日内瓦评分：这是一项横断面研究，研究对象为 2013 年 9 月 23 日至 2016 年 3 月 19 日在伊朗马什哈德市伊玛目礼萨医院或盖姆医院就诊的疑似 PE 患者。特异性、灵敏度和准确性被用作比较本地区 CDR 的指标：研究共纳入 240 名患者。患者的平均年龄为（57.91±19.97）岁，其中 54.16%（n=130）为女性。120 名患者经 CT 血管造影证实患有 PE。韦尔斯评分的灵敏度最高（90.4%），修订版日内瓦评分的特异性最高（84.9%）。简化威尔斯评分的准确性最高（62.3%）：在这项研究中，我们证明了韦尔斯评分标准具有很高的灵敏度，可用作筛查评分，而修订版日内瓦评分具有很高的特异性，可用于韦尔斯评分诊断为不健康的健康人群的第二阶段筛查。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合

CiteScore

31.40

自引率

1.10%

发文量

312

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.