Juana María Plasencia-Martínez, Elena Otón-González, Marta Sánchez-Canales, Herminia Ortiz-Mayoral, Estefanía Cotillo-Ramos, Nuria Isabel Casado-Alarcón, Mónica Ballesta-Ruiz, Ramón Villaverde-González, José María García-Santos
{"title":"从一项回顾性研究中得出的临床预测量表方法，以减少紧急、低价值头颅 CT 扫描的次数。","authors":"Juana María Plasencia-Martínez, Elena Otón-González, Marta Sánchez-Canales, Herminia Ortiz-Mayoral, Estefanía Cotillo-Ramos, Nuria Isabel Casado-Alarcón, Mónica Ballesta-Ruiz, Ramón Villaverde-González, José María García-Santos","doi":"10.1007/s10140-024-02274-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Fifty percent of cranial CT scans performed achieve no benefit and entail risks. Our aim is to determine the yield of non-traumatic urgent cranial-CT and develop a pretest clinical probability scale approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients seen in our emergency department between 2017-2021 and referred for urgent cranial-CT for non-traumatic reasons were retrospectively recruited and randomly selected. Presenting complaint (PC), demographic variables, Relevant radiological findings (RRF) on the urgent cranial-CT and Relevant clinical-radiological findings (RCRF: admission need or RRF detection on the urgent cranial-CT or cranial CT/MRI in the following three months) were recruited.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We recruited 702 patients, with median age 62 [47-76] years, 363 (51.7%) females. RCRF were observed in 404 (57.55%); of these, 352 (50.1%) required admission. RRF were detected in 190 (27.06%): 36 acute ischemic and 27 acute hemorrhagic lesions, 115 masses, 9 edema, and 27 hydrocephalus. Predictive PC for urgent cranial-CT were motor, speech, sensory deficits, sudden alteration of mental status, epileptic seizure, cognitive impairment, neurological symptoms in cancer patients, acute headache without a prior history and with meningeal signs; nausea, vomiting, or hypertensive crisis; visual deficits, and dizziness. This algorithm provided sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV, 95%CI in brackets) of 92.1% (89-94.5%), 27.5% (22.5-33.0%), 63.3% (59.2-67.2%), and 71.9% (62.7-80.0%), to diagnose RCRF, and 97.4% (93.4-99.1%), 21.3% (17.8-25.1%), 31.5% (27.7-35.4%), and 95.6% (90.1-98.6%), to diagnose RRF. In patients not requiring admission (n = 350), the NPV for RRF was 98.8% (93.6-100%); the negative likelihood ratio 0.08 (0.01-0.57), and sensitivity remained at 97.8% (82.2-99.9%). Applying it would have avoided performing 85/350 urgent cranial-CT (24.29%). To find one RRF, we would have gone from performing 7.8 (350/45) to 5.9 (265/45) CTs, failing to diagnose 1/45 (2.2%) RRF.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This proposed clinical scale could potentially decrease 24% of urgent cranial-CT.</p>","PeriodicalId":11623,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"835-843"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical prediction scale approach derived from a retrospective study to reduce the number of urgent, low-value cranial CT scans.\",\"authors\":\"Juana María Plasencia-Martínez, Elena Otón-González, Marta Sánchez-Canales, Herminia Ortiz-Mayoral, Estefanía Cotillo-Ramos, Nuria Isabel Casado-Alarcón, Mónica Ballesta-Ruiz, Ramón Villaverde-González, José María García-Santos\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10140-024-02274-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Fifty percent of cranial CT scans performed achieve no benefit and entail risks. Our aim is to determine the yield of non-traumatic urgent cranial-CT and develop a pretest clinical probability scale approach.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adult patients seen in our emergency department between 2017-2021 and referred for urgent cranial-CT for non-traumatic reasons were retrospectively recruited and randomly selected. Presenting complaint (PC), demographic variables, Relevant radiological findings (RRF) on the urgent cranial-CT and Relevant clinical-radiological findings (RCRF: admission need or RRF detection on the urgent cranial-CT or cranial CT/MRI in the following three months) were recruited.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We recruited 702 patients, with median age 62 [47-76] years, 363 (51.7%) females. RCRF were observed in 404 (57.55%); of these, 352 (50.1%) required admission. RRF were detected in 190 (27.06%): 36 acute ischemic and 27 acute hemorrhagic lesions, 115 masses, 9 edema, and 27 hydrocephalus. Predictive PC for urgent cranial-CT were motor, speech, sensory deficits, sudden alteration of mental status, epileptic seizure, cognitive impairment, neurological symptoms in cancer patients, acute headache without a prior history and with meningeal signs; nausea, vomiting, or hypertensive crisis; visual deficits, and dizziness. This algorithm provided sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV, 95%CI in brackets) of 92.1% (89-94.5%), 27.5% (22.5-33.0%), 63.3% (59.2-67.2%), and 71.9% (62.7-80.0%), to diagnose RCRF, and 97.4% (93.4-99.1%), 21.3% (17.8-25.1%), 31.5% (27.7-35.4%), and 95.6% (90.1-98.6%), to diagnose RRF. In patients not requiring admission (n = 350), the NPV for RRF was 98.8% (93.6-100%); the negative likelihood ratio 0.08 (0.01-0.57), and sensitivity remained at 97.8% (82.2-99.9%). Applying it would have avoided performing 85/350 urgent cranial-CT (24.29%). To find one RRF, we would have gone from performing 7.8 (350/45) to 5.9 (265/45) CTs, failing to diagnose 1/45 (2.2%) RRF.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This proposed clinical scale could potentially decrease 24% of urgent cranial-CT.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11623,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"835-843\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-024-02274-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-024-02274-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinical prediction scale approach derived from a retrospective study to reduce the number of urgent, low-value cranial CT scans.
Purpose: Fifty percent of cranial CT scans performed achieve no benefit and entail risks. Our aim is to determine the yield of non-traumatic urgent cranial-CT and develop a pretest clinical probability scale approach.
Methods: Adult patients seen in our emergency department between 2017-2021 and referred for urgent cranial-CT for non-traumatic reasons were retrospectively recruited and randomly selected. Presenting complaint (PC), demographic variables, Relevant radiological findings (RRF) on the urgent cranial-CT and Relevant clinical-radiological findings (RCRF: admission need or RRF detection on the urgent cranial-CT or cranial CT/MRI in the following three months) were recruited.
Results: We recruited 702 patients, with median age 62 [47-76] years, 363 (51.7%) females. RCRF were observed in 404 (57.55%); of these, 352 (50.1%) required admission. RRF were detected in 190 (27.06%): 36 acute ischemic and 27 acute hemorrhagic lesions, 115 masses, 9 edema, and 27 hydrocephalus. Predictive PC for urgent cranial-CT were motor, speech, sensory deficits, sudden alteration of mental status, epileptic seizure, cognitive impairment, neurological symptoms in cancer patients, acute headache without a prior history and with meningeal signs; nausea, vomiting, or hypertensive crisis; visual deficits, and dizziness. This algorithm provided sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value (NPV, 95%CI in brackets) of 92.1% (89-94.5%), 27.5% (22.5-33.0%), 63.3% (59.2-67.2%), and 71.9% (62.7-80.0%), to diagnose RCRF, and 97.4% (93.4-99.1%), 21.3% (17.8-25.1%), 31.5% (27.7-35.4%), and 95.6% (90.1-98.6%), to diagnose RRF. In patients not requiring admission (n = 350), the NPV for RRF was 98.8% (93.6-100%); the negative likelihood ratio 0.08 (0.01-0.57), and sensitivity remained at 97.8% (82.2-99.9%). Applying it would have avoided performing 85/350 urgent cranial-CT (24.29%). To find one RRF, we would have gone from performing 7.8 (350/45) to 5.9 (265/45) CTs, failing to diagnose 1/45 (2.2%) RRF.
Conclusions: This proposed clinical scale could potentially decrease 24% of urgent cranial-CT.
期刊介绍：
To advance and improve the radiologic aspects of emergency careTo establish Emergency Radiology as an area of special interest in the field of diagnostic imagingTo improve methods of education in Emergency RadiologyTo provide, through formal meetings, a mechanism for presentation of scientific papers on various aspects of Emergency Radiology and continuing educationTo promote research in Emergency Radiology by clinical and basic science investigators, including residents and other traineesTo act as the resource body on Emergency Radiology for those interested in emergency patient care Members of the American Society of Emergency Radiology (ASER) receive the Emergency Radiology journal as a benefit of membership!
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
