儿科急诊研究网络研究:急诊儿童指南中推荐的哮喘评分分析

IF 4.3 3区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS
Charmaine Gray, Madeline Collings, Javier Benito, Roberto Velasco, Mark D Lyttle, Damian Roland, Suzanne Schuh, Bashar Shihabuddin, Maria Kwok, Prashant Mahajan, Mike Johnson, Joseph Zorc, Kajal Khanna, Adriana Yock-Corrales, Ricardo M Fernandes, Indumathy Santhanam, Baljit Cheema, Gene Yong-Kwang Ong, Thiagarajan Jaiganesh, Colin Powell, Stuart Dalziel, Franz E Babl, Jennifer Couper, Simon Craig
{"title":"儿科急诊研究网络研究:急诊儿童指南中推荐的哮喘评分分析","authors":"Charmaine Gray, Madeline Collings, Javier Benito, Roberto Velasco, Mark D Lyttle, Damian Roland, Suzanne Schuh, Bashar Shihabuddin, Maria Kwok, Prashant Mahajan, Mike Johnson, Joseph Zorc, Kajal Khanna, Adriana Yock-Corrales, Ricardo M Fernandes, Indumathy Santhanam, Baljit Cheema, Gene Yong-Kwang Ong, Thiagarajan Jaiganesh, Colin Powell, Stuart Dalziel, Franz E Babl, Jennifer Couper, Simon Craig","doi":"10.1136/archdischild-2024-327635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>While there are numerous published paediatric asthma scores, it is unknown how commonly scores are recommended in asthma guidelines across different geographical regions globally, and what their validation status is.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>(1) To describe which clinical guidelines recommend asthma scores across different geographical regions. (2) To describe the initial and subsequent validation of the commonly recommended asthma scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Observational study of asthma scores recommended in guidelines for the management of acute paediatric asthma from institutions across the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Network; global paediatric emergency medicine research network comprising all eight local and regional paediatric emergency medicine research networks.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>158 guidelines were identified. Overall, 83/158 (53%) guidelines recommend a bedside clinical score for assessment of asthma severity. While a single country-specific clinical score was recommended in all guidelines from Spain and Canada, 27/28 (96%) of the USA guidelines recommend a wide variety of scores, and scores are rarely recommended in guidelines from other research networks (PERUKI, Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland and PREDICT, Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative in Australia and New Zealand) and other countries (Costa Rica, South Africa, Nigeria, Singapore, India).The Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) and the pulmonary score (PS) were the most frequently used scoring instruments. While the PRAM has undergone the most extensive validation, including construct validity, validation studies for the PS are limited. Inter-rater reliability, as well as the criterion, responsiveness and discriminative validity aspects represent the most common limitations in many of the scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are marked geographical differences in both the recommendation for and the type of clinical asthma score in clinical practice guidelines. While many asthma scores are recommended, most have insufficient validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":8150,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Disease in Childhood","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis of the asthma scores recommended in guidelines for children presenting to the emergency department: a Pediatric Emergency Research Networks study.\",\"authors\":\"Charmaine Gray, Madeline Collings, Javier Benito, Roberto Velasco, Mark D Lyttle, Damian Roland, Suzanne Schuh, Bashar Shihabuddin, Maria Kwok, Prashant Mahajan, Mike Johnson, Joseph Zorc, Kajal Khanna, Adriana Yock-Corrales, Ricardo M Fernandes, Indumathy Santhanam, Baljit Cheema, Gene Yong-Kwang Ong, Thiagarajan Jaiganesh, Colin Powell, Stuart Dalziel, Franz E Babl, Jennifer Couper, Simon Craig\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/archdischild-2024-327635\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>While there are numerous published paediatric asthma scores, it is unknown how commonly scores are recommended in asthma guidelines across different geographical regions globally, and what their validation status is.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>(1) To describe which clinical guidelines recommend asthma scores across different geographical regions. (2) To describe the initial and subsequent validation of the commonly recommended asthma scores.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Observational study of asthma scores recommended in guidelines for the management of acute paediatric asthma from institutions across the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Network; global paediatric emergency medicine research network comprising all eight local and regional paediatric emergency medicine research networks.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>158 guidelines were identified. Overall, 83/158 (53%) guidelines recommend a bedside clinical score for assessment of asthma severity. While a single country-specific clinical score was recommended in all guidelines from Spain and Canada, 27/28 (96%) of the USA guidelines recommend a wide variety of scores, and scores are rarely recommended in guidelines from other research networks (PERUKI, Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland and PREDICT, Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative in Australia and New Zealand) and other countries (Costa Rica, South Africa, Nigeria, Singapore, India).The Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) and the pulmonary score (PS) were the most frequently used scoring instruments. While the PRAM has undergone the most extensive validation, including construct validity, validation studies for the PS are limited. Inter-rater reliability, as well as the criterion, responsiveness and discriminative validity aspects represent the most common limitations in many of the scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There are marked geographical differences in both the recommendation for and the type of clinical asthma score in clinical practice guidelines. While many asthma scores are recommended, most have insufficient validation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8150,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Disease in Childhood\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Disease in Childhood\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2024-327635\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PEDIATRICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Disease in Childhood","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2024-327635","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

理由:虽然有许多已发表的儿科哮喘评分,但尚不清楚评分在全球不同地理区域的哮喘指南中推荐的普遍程度,以及它们的验证状态如何。目的:(1)描述哪些临床指南推荐不同地理区域的哮喘评分。(2)描述通常推荐的哮喘评分的初始和后续验证。方法:观察性研究来自儿科急诊医学网络各机构的急性儿科哮喘管理指南中推荐的哮喘评分;全球儿科急诊医学研究网络,包括所有八个地方和区域儿科急诊医学研究网络。主要结果:确定了158项指南。总体而言,83/158(53%)的指南推荐使用床边临床评分来评估哮喘严重程度。虽然西班牙和加拿大的所有指南都推荐单一的国家特定临床评分,但27/28(96%)的美国指南推荐了各种各样的评分,并且其他研究网络(PERUKI,英国和爱尔兰的儿科急诊研究和PREDICT,澳大利亚和新西兰急诊科国际合作儿科研究)和其他国家(哥斯达黎加,南非,尼日利亚,新加坡,印度)。儿童呼吸评估量表(PRAM)和肺评分(PS)是最常用的评分工具。虽然PRAM已经经历了最广泛的验证,包括结构效度,但对PS的验证研究有限。评分者之间的信度,以及标准,反应性和判别效度方面代表了许多分数中最常见的限制。结论:临床实践指南中哮喘评分的推荐值和类型存在明显的地域差异。虽然许多哮喘评分被推荐,但大多数都没有充分的验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analysis of the asthma scores recommended in guidelines for children presenting to the emergency department: a Pediatric Emergency Research Networks study.

Rationale: While there are numerous published paediatric asthma scores, it is unknown how commonly scores are recommended in asthma guidelines across different geographical regions globally, and what their validation status is.

Objectives: (1) To describe which clinical guidelines recommend asthma scores across different geographical regions. (2) To describe the initial and subsequent validation of the commonly recommended asthma scores.

Methods: Observational study of asthma scores recommended in guidelines for the management of acute paediatric asthma from institutions across the Pediatric Emergency Medicine Network; global paediatric emergency medicine research network comprising all eight local and regional paediatric emergency medicine research networks.

Main results: 158 guidelines were identified. Overall, 83/158 (53%) guidelines recommend a bedside clinical score for assessment of asthma severity. While a single country-specific clinical score was recommended in all guidelines from Spain and Canada, 27/28 (96%) of the USA guidelines recommend a wide variety of scores, and scores are rarely recommended in guidelines from other research networks (PERUKI, Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland and PREDICT, Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International Collaborative in Australia and New Zealand) and other countries (Costa Rica, South Africa, Nigeria, Singapore, India).The Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM) and the pulmonary score (PS) were the most frequently used scoring instruments. While the PRAM has undergone the most extensive validation, including construct validity, validation studies for the PS are limited. Inter-rater reliability, as well as the criterion, responsiveness and discriminative validity aspects represent the most common limitations in many of the scores.

Conclusions: There are marked geographical differences in both the recommendation for and the type of clinical asthma score in clinical practice guidelines. While many asthma scores are recommended, most have insufficient validation.

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
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
3.80%
发文量
291
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Archives of Disease in Childhood is an international peer review journal that aims to keep paediatricians and others up to date with advances in the diagnosis and treatment of childhood diseases as well as advocacy issues such as child protection. It focuses on all aspects of child health and disease from the perinatal period (in the Fetal and Neonatal edition) through to adolescence. ADC includes original research reports, commentaries, reviews of clinical and policy issues, and evidence reports. Areas covered include: community child health, public health, epidemiology, acute paediatrics, advocacy, and ethics.
×
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