评估结合风险评分系统和超声波检查对晕厥短期不良后果的预测价值:前瞻性观察研究

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
{"title":"评估结合风险评分系统和超声波检查对晕厥短期不良后果的预测价值:前瞻性观察研究","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jemermed.2024.03.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span>In the emergency department (ED), the role of </span>ultrasonography<span><span> (USG) in risk stratification and predicting </span>adverse events in syncope patients is a current research area. However, it is still unclear how ultrasound can be combined with existing risk scores.</span></p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>In this study, it was aimed to examine the contribution of the use of bedside USG to current risk scores in the evaluation of patients presenting to the ED with syncope. The predictive values of the combined use of USG and risk scores for adverse outcomes at 7 and 30 days were examined.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS), San Francisco syncope rules (SFSR), USG findings of carotid and deep venous structures, and echocardiography results were recorded for patients presenting with syncope. Parameters showing significance in the 7-day and 30-day adverse outcome groups were utilized to create new scores termed CSRS-USG and SFSR-USG. Predictive values were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The difference between the predictive values was evaluated with the DeLong test.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>The study was carried out with 137 participants. Adverse outcomes were observed in 45 participants (32.8%) within 30 days. 32 (71.7%) of the adverse outcomes were in the first 7 days. For 30-day adverse outcomes, the SFSR-USG (</span><em>p</em> = 0.001) and CSRS-USG (<em>p</em> = 0.038) scores had better predictive accuracy compared to SFSR and CSRS, respectively. However, there was no significant improvement in sensitivity and specificity values.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The use of USG in the evaluation of syncope patients did not result in significant improvement in sensitivity and specificity values for predicting adverse events. However, larger sample-sized studies are needed to understand its potential contributions better.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16085,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the Predictive Value of Combining Risk Scoring Systems and Ultrasonography for Short-Term Adverse Outcomes in Syncope: A Prospective Observational Study\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jemermed.2024.03.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span>In the emergency department (ED), the role of </span>ultrasonography<span><span> (USG) in risk stratification and predicting </span>adverse events in syncope patients is a current research area. However, it is still unclear how ultrasound can be combined with existing risk scores.</span></p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>In this study, it was aimed to examine the contribution of the use of bedside USG to current risk scores in the evaluation of patients presenting to the ED with syncope. The predictive values of the combined use of USG and risk scores for adverse outcomes at 7 and 30 days were examined.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS), San Francisco syncope rules (SFSR), USG findings of carotid and deep venous structures, and echocardiography results were recorded for patients presenting with syncope. Parameters showing significance in the 7-day and 30-day adverse outcome groups were utilized to create new scores termed CSRS-USG and SFSR-USG. Predictive values were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The difference between the predictive values was evaluated with the DeLong test.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>The study was carried out with 137 participants. Adverse outcomes were observed in 45 participants (32.8%) within 30 days. 32 (71.7%) of the adverse outcomes were in the first 7 days. For 30-day adverse outcomes, the SFSR-USG (</span><em>p</em> = 0.001) and CSRS-USG (<em>p</em> = 0.038) scores had better predictive accuracy compared to SFSR and CSRS, respectively. However, there was no significant improvement in sensitivity and specificity values.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The use of USG in the evaluation of syncope patients did not result in significant improvement in sensitivity and specificity values for predicting adverse events. However, larger sample-sized studies are needed to understand its potential contributions better.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16085,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467924000775\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467924000775","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景在急诊科(ED)中,超声波检查(USG)在晕厥患者的风险分层和不良事件预测中的作用是当前的一个研究领域。本研究旨在探讨在评估因晕厥而到急诊科就诊的患者时,床旁 USG 的使用对现有风险评分的贡献。方法 记录晕厥患者的加拿大晕厥风险评分(CSRS)、旧金山晕厥规则(SFSR)、颈动脉和深静脉结构的 USG 结果以及超声心动图结果。在 7 天和 30 天不良后果组中显示出显著性的参数被用来创建新的评分,称为 CSRS-USG 和 SFSR-USG。预测值采用接收器操作特征(ROC)分析法进行评估。预测值之间的差异通过 DeLong 检验进行评估。45 名参与者(32.8%)在 30 天内出现了不良后果。32例(71.7%)的不良反应发生在前7天。与 SFSR 和 CSRS 相比,SFSR-USG(p = 0.001)和 CSRS-USG(p = 0.038)评分对 30 天内不良后果的预测准确性分别更高。结论在评估晕厥患者时使用 USG 并未显著提高预测不良事件的灵敏度和特异性。然而,要想更好地了解 USG 的潜在贡献,还需要进行更大样本量的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the Predictive Value of Combining Risk Scoring Systems and Ultrasonography for Short-Term Adverse Outcomes in Syncope: A Prospective Observational Study

Background

In the emergency department (ED), the role of ultrasonography (USG) in risk stratification and predicting adverse events in syncope patients is a current research area. However, it is still unclear how ultrasound can be combined with existing risk scores.

Objectives

In this study, it was aimed to examine the contribution of the use of bedside USG to current risk scores in the evaluation of patients presenting to the ED with syncope. The predictive values of the combined use of USG and risk scores for adverse outcomes at 7 and 30 days were examined.

Methods

The Canadian Syncope Risk Score (CSRS), San Francisco syncope rules (SFSR), USG findings of carotid and deep venous structures, and echocardiography results were recorded for patients presenting with syncope. Parameters showing significance in the 7-day and 30-day adverse outcome groups were utilized to create new scores termed CSRS-USG and SFSR-USG. Predictive values were evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The difference between the predictive values was evaluated with the DeLong test.

Results

The study was carried out with 137 participants. Adverse outcomes were observed in 45 participants (32.8%) within 30 days. 32 (71.7%) of the adverse outcomes were in the first 7 days. For 30-day adverse outcomes, the SFSR-USG (p = 0.001) and CSRS-USG (p = 0.038) scores had better predictive accuracy compared to SFSR and CSRS, respectively. However, there was no significant improvement in sensitivity and specificity values.

Conclusion

The use of USG in the evaluation of syncope patients did not result in significant improvement in sensitivity and specificity values for predicting adverse events. However, larger sample-sized studies are needed to understand its potential contributions better.

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
Journal of Emergency Medicine
Journal of Emergency Medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
339
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Emergency Medicine is an international, peer-reviewed publication featuring original contributions of interest to both the academic and practicing emergency physician. JEM, published monthly, contains research papers and clinical studies as well as articles focusing on the training of emergency physicians and on the practice of emergency medicine. The Journal features the following sections: • Original Contributions • Clinical Communications: Pediatric, Adult, OB/GYN • Selected Topics: Toxicology, Prehospital Care, The Difficult Airway, Aeromedical Emergencies, Disaster Medicine, Cardiology Commentary, Emergency Radiology, Critical Care, Sports Medicine, Wound Care • Techniques and Procedures • Technical Tips • Clinical Laboratory in Emergency Medicine • Pharmacology in Emergency Medicine • Case Presentations of the Harvard Emergency Medicine Residency • Visual Diagnosis in Emergency Medicine • Medical Classics • Emergency Forum • Editorial(s) • Letters to the Editor • Education • Administration of Emergency Medicine • International Emergency Medicine • Computers in Emergency Medicine • Violence: Recognition, Management, and Prevention • Ethics • Humanities and Medicine • American Academy of Emergency Medicine • AAEM Medical Student Forum • Book and Other Media Reviews • Calendar of Events • Abstracts • Trauma Reports • Ultrasound in Emergency Medicine
×
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