Diagnostic accuracy of the Geneva clinical scale for diagnostic prediction of pulmonary embolism in adults aged 18 and older admitted between 2009 and 2020 with suspected pulmonary embolism at a Third-Level Institution in Colombia: A retrospective cohort study.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Cristian López-Vega, Michel Pérez-Garzón, Leonora Ortiz-García-Herreros, Alirio Bastidas-Goyes, Manuel Aramendiz-Narvaez, Estefan Ramos-Isaza, Henry Robayo-Amortegui
{"title":"Diagnostic accuracy of the Geneva clinical scale for diagnostic prediction of pulmonary embolism in adults aged 18 and older admitted between 2009 and 2020 with suspected pulmonary embolism at a Third-Level Institution in Colombia: A retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Cristian López-Vega, Michel Pérez-Garzón, Leonora Ortiz-García-Herreros, Alirio Bastidas-Goyes, Manuel Aramendiz-Narvaez, Estefan Ramos-Isaza, Henry Robayo-Amortegui","doi":"10.1097/MD.0000000000041603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To assess the overall applicability of the Geneva scale for diagnosing pulmonary embolism in adults aged 18 and older. A retrospective cohort study with diagnostic test analysis was conducted on patients in the emergency department or hospitalized between 2009 and 2020 with suspected pulmonary embolism at a Third-Level Institution in Colombia. Local study. The original and simplified Geneva scores were applied to 1237 subjects aged 18 and older with suspected pulmonary embolism and compared with confirmatory results from pulmonary angiography. All necessary variables for constructing the original and simplified Geneva rules were recorded, and calculations for sensitivity (S), specificity (E), likelihood ratios, and receiver operating characteristic curves were performed. The Geneva original score exhibited an S, E, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and area under the curve of 60%, 54%, 1.3, 0.728, and 0.506, respectively. The simplified Geneva score showed 59%, 57%, 1.4, 0.7, and 0.546 for S, E, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and area under the curve, respectively. The use of the original or simplified Geneva score in our population may not be useful for a diagnostic approach to pulmonary embolism. Both scales demonstrate almost negligible discriminatory capacity, necessitating the evaluation of other standardized clinical decision rules to assess the diagnosis and pretest probability of pulmonary thromboembolism.</p>","PeriodicalId":18549,"journal":{"name":"Medicine","volume":"104 9","pages":"e41603"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11875587/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000041603","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To assess the overall applicability of the Geneva scale for diagnosing pulmonary embolism in adults aged 18 and older. A retrospective cohort study with diagnostic test analysis was conducted on patients in the emergency department or hospitalized between 2009 and 2020 with suspected pulmonary embolism at a Third-Level Institution in Colombia. Local study. The original and simplified Geneva scores were applied to 1237 subjects aged 18 and older with suspected pulmonary embolism and compared with confirmatory results from pulmonary angiography. All necessary variables for constructing the original and simplified Geneva rules were recorded, and calculations for sensitivity (S), specificity (E), likelihood ratios, and receiver operating characteristic curves were performed. The Geneva original score exhibited an S, E, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and area under the curve of 60%, 54%, 1.3, 0.728, and 0.506, respectively. The simplified Geneva score showed 59%, 57%, 1.4, 0.7, and 0.546 for S, E, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and area under the curve, respectively. The use of the original or simplified Geneva score in our population may not be useful for a diagnostic approach to pulmonary embolism. Both scales demonstrate almost negligible discriminatory capacity, necessitating the evaluation of other standardized clinical decision rules to assess the diagnosis and pretest probability of pulmonary thromboembolism.

评估日内瓦量表在诊断 18 岁及以上成年人肺栓塞方面的总体适用性。对 2009 年至 2020 年期间在哥伦比亚一家三级医疗机构急诊科就诊或住院的疑似肺栓塞患者进行了诊断测试分析,并开展了一项回顾性队列研究。本地研究。对 1237 名年龄在 18 岁及以上的疑似肺栓塞患者采用了日内瓦原始评分和简化评分,并与肺血管造影的确诊结果进行了比较。研究人员记录了构建原始和简化日内瓦规则所需的所有变量,并计算了灵敏度(S)、特异度(E)、似然比和接收者操作特征曲线。日内瓦原始评分的 S、E、正似然比、负似然比和曲线下面积分别为 60%、54%、1.3、0.728 和 0.506。简化日内瓦评分的 S、E、正似然比、负似然比和曲线下面积分别为 59%、57%、1.4、0.7 和 0.546。在我国人群中使用原始或简化的日内瓦评分可能对肺栓塞的诊断方法无益。这两个量表的鉴别能力几乎可以忽略不计,因此有必要评估其他标准化临床决策规则,以评估肺血栓栓塞症的诊断和检测前概率。
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
Medicine
Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4342
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medicine is now a fully open access journal, providing authors with a distinctive new service offering continuous publication of original research across a broad spectrum of medical scientific disciplines and sub-specialties. As an open access title, Medicine will continue to provide authors with an established, trusted platform for the publication of their work. To ensure the ongoing quality of Medicine’s content, the peer-review process will only accept content that is scientifically, technically and ethically sound, and in compliance with standard reporting guidelines.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信