Development and Validation of a Modified Sudbury Vertigo Risk Score for Predicting Central Causes of Dizziness in the Emergency Department.

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Shunsuke Soma, Tsukasa Kamitani, Sho Sasaki
{"title":"Development and Validation of a Modified Sudbury Vertigo Risk Score for Predicting Central Causes of Dizziness in the Emergency Department.","authors":"Shunsuke Soma, Tsukasa Kamitani, Sho Sasaki","doi":"10.1111/acem.70367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Distinguishing central causes of dizziness from peripheral causes in emergency department (ED) patients is a challenging clinical problem. The Sudbury Vertigo Risk Score is a clinical prediction model that supports decision-making by predicting central causes of dizziness. However, its predictor \"benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) diagnosis\" may introduce uncertainty and limit clinical usability. Therefore, we developed a modified model in which this predictor was replaced with variables that can be assessed through patient history.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively included consecutive patients aged ≥ 15 years who presented with dizziness to an ED between April 2013 and March 2023. The outcome was dizziness due to central lesions, defined as abnormalities identified on neuroimaging and judged by a relevant specialist to be the cause of dizziness. We developed a modified model using multivariable logistic regression in which \"BPPV diagnosis\" was replaced with two predictors-\"trigger (provoked by changes in head position)\" and \"history of dizziness\"-while retaining the other original predictors. We evaluated discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration using a calibration plot. We compared efficiency and safety between the modified model and the Sudbury model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 3606 patients, a total of 2958 were eligible. Dizziness due to central lesions was identified in 155 patients (5.2%). The AUROC was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.82-0.88) for the Sudbury model and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.85) for the modified model. The modified model showed calibration comparable to that of the original model. Safety and efficiency were 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0%-0.5%) and 26.8% (95% CI, 25.2%-28.4%) for the Sudbury model, and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%) and 18.7% (95% CI, 17.3%-20.1%) for the modified model.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The modified model showed comparable performance after replacing BPPV diagnosis with predictors that can be more easily assessed through patient history.</p>","PeriodicalId":7105,"journal":{"name":"Academic Emergency Medicine","volume":"33 6","pages":"e70367"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.70367","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Distinguishing central causes of dizziness from peripheral causes in emergency department (ED) patients is a challenging clinical problem. The Sudbury Vertigo Risk Score is a clinical prediction model that supports decision-making by predicting central causes of dizziness. However, its predictor "benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) diagnosis" may introduce uncertainty and limit clinical usability. Therefore, we developed a modified model in which this predictor was replaced with variables that can be assessed through patient history.

Methods: We retrospectively included consecutive patients aged ≥ 15 years who presented with dizziness to an ED between April 2013 and March 2023. The outcome was dizziness due to central lesions, defined as abnormalities identified on neuroimaging and judged by a relevant specialist to be the cause of dizziness. We developed a modified model using multivariable logistic regression in which "BPPV diagnosis" was replaced with two predictors-"trigger (provoked by changes in head position)" and "history of dizziness"-while retaining the other original predictors. We evaluated discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration using a calibration plot. We compared efficiency and safety between the modified model and the Sudbury model.

Results: Among 3606 patients, a total of 2958 were eligible. Dizziness due to central lesions was identified in 155 patients (5.2%). The AUROC was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.82-0.88) for the Sudbury model and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.85) for the modified model. The modified model showed calibration comparable to that of the original model. Safety and efficiency were 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0%-0.5%) and 26.8% (95% CI, 25.2%-28.4%) for the Sudbury model, and 0.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%) and 18.7% (95% CI, 17.3%-20.1%) for the modified model.

Conclusion: The modified model showed comparable performance after replacing BPPV diagnosis with predictors that can be more easily assessed through patient history.

改进的萨德伯里眩晕风险评分用于预测急诊科眩晕的中心原因的开发和验证。
背景:在急诊科(ED)患者中区分中枢原因和外周原因是一个具有挑战性的临床问题。萨德伯里眩晕风险评分是一个临床预测模型,通过预测眩晕的主要原因来支持决策。然而,其预测“良性阵发性位置性眩晕(BPPV)诊断”可能会引入不确定性并限制临床可用性。因此,我们开发了一个改进的模型,其中这个预测因子被可以通过患者病史评估的变量所取代。方法:我们回顾性地纳入了2013年4月至2023年3月期间连续出现头晕症状的年龄≥15岁的ED患者。结果是中枢病变引起的头晕,定义为神经影像学发现的异常,并由相关专家判断为头晕的原因。我们使用多变量逻辑回归开发了一个改进的模型,其中“BPPV诊断”被两个预测因素取代-“触发(由头部位置变化引起)”和“头晕史”-同时保留其他原始预测因素。我们使用接收者工作特征曲线下面积(AUROC)和校准图来评估鉴别。我们比较了改进后的模型与Sudbury模型的效率和安全性。结果:3606例患者中,共有2958例符合条件。155例(5.2%)患者出现中枢性病变引起的头晕。萨德伯里模型的AUROC为0.85 (95% CI, 0.82-0.88),修正模型的AUROC为0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.85)。修正后的模型与原模型的校正结果相当。萨德伯里模型的安全性和有效性分别为0.0% (95% CI, 0.0%-0.5%)和26.8% (95% CI, 25.2%-28.4%),改良模型的安全性和有效性分别为0.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-2.1%)和18.7% (95% CI, 17.3%-20.1%)。结论:改进后的模型在用更容易通过患者病史评估的预测因子取代BPPV诊断后显示出相当的性能。
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
Academic Emergency Medicine
Academic Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
6.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) is the official monthly publication of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) and publishes information relevant to the practice, educational advancements, and investigation of emergency medicine. It is the second-largest peer-reviewed scientific journal in the specialty of emergency medicine. The goal of AEM is to advance the science, education, and clinical practice of emergency medicine, to serve as a voice for the academic emergency medicine community, and to promote SAEM''s goals and objectives. Members and non-members worldwide depend on this journal for translational medicine relevant to emergency medicine, as well as for clinical news, case studies and more. Each issue contains information relevant to the research, educational advancements, and practice in emergency medicine. Subject matter is diverse, including preclinical studies, clinical topics, health policy, and educational methods. The research of SAEM members contributes significantly to the scientific content and development of the journal.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书