{"title":"为严重眩晕病因的风险分层制定临床风险评分: 一项前瞻性队列研究","authors":"Robert Ohle","doi":"10.1101/2024.03.04.24303562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: Identify highrisk clinical characteristics for a serious cause of vertigo in patients presenting to the emergency department. Design: Multicentre prospective cohort study over 3 years.\nSetting: Three university affiliated tertiary care emergency departments.\nParticipants: Patients presenting with vertigo, dizziness or imbalance. A total of 2078 of 2618 potentially eligible patients (79.4%) were enrolled (mean age 77.1 years; 59% women). Main outcome measurements: An adjudicated serious diagnosis defined as stroke, transient ischemic attack, vertebral artery dissection or brain tumour.\nResults: Serious events occurred in 111 (5.3%) patients. We used logistic regression to create a 7 item prediction model: male, age over 65, hypertension, diabetes, motor/sensory deficits, cerebellar signs/symptoms and benign paroxysmal positional vertigo diagnosis (C statistic 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 0.98). The risk of a serious diagnosis ranged from 0% for a score of <5, 2.1% for a score of 5-8, and 41% for a score >8. Sensitivity for a serious diagnosis was 100% (95% CI, 97.1 100%) and specificity 72.1% (95% CI, 70.1 74%) for a score <5. Conclusions: The Sudbury Vertigo Risk Score identifies the risk of a serious diagnosis as a cause of a patient's vertigo and can assist physicians in guiding further investigation, consultation and treatment decisions, improving resource utilization and reducing missed diagnoses.","PeriodicalId":501290,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Emergency Medicine","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of a clinical risk score to risk stratify for a serious cause of vertigo: A prospective cohort study\",\"authors\":\"Robert Ohle\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.03.04.24303562\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: Identify highrisk clinical characteristics for a serious cause of vertigo in patients presenting to the emergency department. Design: Multicentre prospective cohort study over 3 years.\\nSetting: Three university affiliated tertiary care emergency departments.\\nParticipants: Patients presenting with vertigo, dizziness or imbalance. A total of 2078 of 2618 potentially eligible patients (79.4%) were enrolled (mean age 77.1 years; 59% women). Main outcome measurements: An adjudicated serious diagnosis defined as stroke, transient ischemic attack, vertebral artery dissection or brain tumour.\\nResults: Serious events occurred in 111 (5.3%) patients. We used logistic regression to create a 7 item prediction model: male, age over 65, hypertension, diabetes, motor/sensory deficits, cerebellar signs/symptoms and benign paroxysmal positional vertigo diagnosis (C statistic 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 0.98). The risk of a serious diagnosis ranged from 0% for a score of <5, 2.1% for a score of 5-8, and 41% for a score >8. Sensitivity for a serious diagnosis was 100% (95% CI, 97.1 100%) and specificity 72.1% (95% CI, 70.1 74%) for a score <5. Conclusions: The Sudbury Vertigo Risk Score identifies the risk of a serious diagnosis as a cause of a patient's vertigo and can assist physicians in guiding further investigation, consultation and treatment decisions, improving resource utilization and reducing missed diagnoses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.04.24303562\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.04.24303562","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Development of a clinical risk score to risk stratify for a serious cause of vertigo: A prospective cohort study
Objectives: Identify highrisk clinical characteristics for a serious cause of vertigo in patients presenting to the emergency department. Design: Multicentre prospective cohort study over 3 years.
Setting: Three university affiliated tertiary care emergency departments.
Participants: Patients presenting with vertigo, dizziness or imbalance. A total of 2078 of 2618 potentially eligible patients (79.4%) were enrolled (mean age 77.1 years; 59% women). Main outcome measurements: An adjudicated serious diagnosis defined as stroke, transient ischemic attack, vertebral artery dissection or brain tumour.
Results: Serious events occurred in 111 (5.3%) patients. We used logistic regression to create a 7 item prediction model: male, age over 65, hypertension, diabetes, motor/sensory deficits, cerebellar signs/symptoms and benign paroxysmal positional vertigo diagnosis (C statistic 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 0.98). The risk of a serious diagnosis ranged from 0% for a score of <5, 2.1% for a score of 5-8, and 41% for a score >8. Sensitivity for a serious diagnosis was 100% (95% CI, 97.1 100%) and specificity 72.1% (95% CI, 70.1 74%) for a score <5. Conclusions: The Sudbury Vertigo Risk Score identifies the risk of a serious diagnosis as a cause of a patient's vertigo and can assist physicians in guiding further investigation, consultation and treatment decisions, improving resource utilization and reducing missed diagnoses.