对现有老年急诊患者肺炎诊断标准临床表现的答复

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Katherine M. Hunold, Jeffrey M. Caterino
{"title":"对现有老年急诊患者肺炎诊断标准临床表现的答复","authors":"Katherine M. Hunold,&nbsp;Jeffrey M. Caterino","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Thank you to Turgut et al. for their careful review of our manuscript “Clinical performance of existing diagnostic criteria for pneumonia in older emergency patients: a prospective cohort study.” We would like to address each of their comments below.</p><p>In Table 1 [<span>1</span>], in accordance with the STROBE guidelines we chose to present raw data for the demographic/descriptive data without conducting post hoc analyses or presenting <i>p</i>-values [<span>2</span>]. When we conduct these statistical tests, all <i>p</i>-values are &gt; 0.20 except race, which is &lt; 0.001. Regardless of which correction is used for multiple comparisons; the interpretation of these <i>p</i>-values would be the same and only race would be significant.</p><p>Our goal was to describe the performance of diagnostic criteria derived and validated in other settings and to determine if their performance was sufficient for the acute care setting. The study was powered to achieve this goal [<span>1</span>]. We did not seek to and were not powered to rederive or to test various iterations/cutoffs of the previously published criteria. Therefore, there was no ROC curve analysis to perform. We agree that rigorous derivation and validation of a more effective rule is critical and being pursued in our ongoing work [<span>3</span>].</p><p>We agree that long-term patient-centered clinical outcomes must be considered including the side effects of inappropriately prescribed medications (over-diagnosis) [<span>4</span>] and the delay of appropriate medications (under-diagnosis) [<span>5, 6</span>]. The request for patient-centered outcomes such as these is an important but different study that we and others have attempted to answer with results consistently demonstrating potential patient harm from both types of mis-diagnosis [<span>7-9</span>]. Notably previous results demonstrated high diagnostic uncertainty [<span>10</span>], supporting the assertion that before we can affect those outcomes in a prospective study, we must ensure that we can accurately and reliably diagnose pneumonia in the emergency department. While we were not powered to report on outcomes such as mortality, we have previously published on some patient-centered outcomes such as functional decline in this study population.</p><p>Unfortunately, in older adults, accurate diagnosis of pneumonia in the emergency department remains a challenge and thus, we agree with Turgut et al., that this is an important research priority and hope that our ongoing work can contribute to improving the care of older adult emergency department patients.</p><p>K.M.H. and J.M.C. obtained funding for this work and conceived the idea for this manuscript. K.M.H. and J.M.C. drafted the manuscript, performed revisions and contributed their expertise in the area.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p>","PeriodicalId":17240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":"73 4","pages":"1316-1317"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jgs.19347","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reply to Comment on: Clinical Performance of Existing Diagnostic Criteria for Pneumonia in Older Emergency Patients\",\"authors\":\"Katherine M. Hunold,&nbsp;Jeffrey M. Caterino\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jgs.19347\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Thank you to Turgut et al. for their careful review of our manuscript “Clinical performance of existing diagnostic criteria for pneumonia in older emergency patients: a prospective cohort study.” We would like to address each of their comments below.</p><p>In Table 1 [<span>1</span>], in accordance with the STROBE guidelines we chose to present raw data for the demographic/descriptive data without conducting post hoc analyses or presenting <i>p</i>-values [<span>2</span>]. When we conduct these statistical tests, all <i>p</i>-values are &gt; 0.20 except race, which is &lt; 0.001. Regardless of which correction is used for multiple comparisons; the interpretation of these <i>p</i>-values would be the same and only race would be significant.</p><p>Our goal was to describe the performance of diagnostic criteria derived and validated in other settings and to determine if their performance was sufficient for the acute care setting. The study was powered to achieve this goal [<span>1</span>]. We did not seek to and were not powered to rederive or to test various iterations/cutoffs of the previously published criteria. Therefore, there was no ROC curve analysis to perform. We agree that rigorous derivation and validation of a more effective rule is critical and being pursued in our ongoing work [<span>3</span>].</p><p>We agree that long-term patient-centered clinical outcomes must be considered including the side effects of inappropriately prescribed medications (over-diagnosis) [<span>4</span>] and the delay of appropriate medications (under-diagnosis) [<span>5, 6</span>]. The request for patient-centered outcomes such as these is an important but different study that we and others have attempted to answer with results consistently demonstrating potential patient harm from both types of mis-diagnosis [<span>7-9</span>]. Notably previous results demonstrated high diagnostic uncertainty [<span>10</span>], supporting the assertion that before we can affect those outcomes in a prospective study, we must ensure that we can accurately and reliably diagnose pneumonia in the emergency department. While we were not powered to report on outcomes such as mortality, we have previously published on some patient-centered outcomes such as functional decline in this study population.</p><p>Unfortunately, in older adults, accurate diagnosis of pneumonia in the emergency department remains a challenge and thus, we agree with Turgut et al., that this is an important research priority and hope that our ongoing work can contribute to improving the care of older adult emergency department patients.</p><p>K.M.H. and J.M.C. obtained funding for this work and conceived the idea for this manuscript. K.M.H. and J.M.C. drafted the manuscript, performed revisions and contributed their expertise in the area.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society\",\"volume\":\"73 4\",\"pages\":\"1316-1317\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jgs.19347\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jgs.19347\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jgs.19347","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

感谢Turgut等人对我们的稿件《老年急诊患者肺炎现有诊断标准的临床表现:一项前瞻性队列研究》的仔细审查。我们想在下面回答他们的每一个评论。在表1[1]中,根据STROBE指南,我们选择呈现人口统计学/描述性数据的原始数据,而不进行事后分析或呈现p值[2]。当我们进行这些统计检验时,所有的p值都是>; 0.20,除了种族是<; 0.001。无论哪种校正用于多次比较;这些p值的解释是相同的,只有种族是重要的。我们的目标是描述在其他环境中导出和验证的诊断标准的性能,并确定其性能是否足以用于急性护理环境。这项研究为实现这一目标提供了动力。我们没有寻求,也没有能力去重新推导或测试以前发布的标准的各种迭代/截止。因此,没有进行ROC曲线分析。我们同意,严格推导和验证更有效的规则是至关重要的,这是我们正在进行的工作的一部分。我们同意必须考虑以患者为中心的长期临床结果,包括处方不当的副作用(过度诊断)和适当药物的延迟(诊断不足)[5,6]。对以患者为中心的结果的要求是一项重要但不同的研究,我们和其他人试图回答这一问题,结果一致表明两种类型的误诊可能对患者造成伤害[7-9]。值得注意的是,先前的研究结果显示出很高的诊断不确定性[10],这支持了在我们能够影响前瞻性研究的这些结果之前,我们必须确保我们能够准确可靠地诊断急诊科的肺炎的断言。虽然我们没有能力报告死亡率等结果,但我们之前已经发表了一些以患者为中心的结果,如该研究人群的功能下降。不幸的是,在老年人中,在急诊科准确诊断肺炎仍然是一个挑战,因此,我们同意Turgut等人的观点,这是一个重要的研究重点,希望我们正在进行的工作可以有助于改善老年人急诊科患者的护理。J.M.C.为这项工作获得了资金,并构思了这个手稿的想法。K.M.H.和J.M.C.起草了手稿,进行了修改,并贡献了他们在该领域的专业知识。作者声明无利益冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reply to Comment on: Clinical Performance of Existing Diagnostic Criteria for Pneumonia in Older Emergency Patients

Thank you to Turgut et al. for their careful review of our manuscript “Clinical performance of existing diagnostic criteria for pneumonia in older emergency patients: a prospective cohort study.” We would like to address each of their comments below.

In Table 1 [1], in accordance with the STROBE guidelines we chose to present raw data for the demographic/descriptive data without conducting post hoc analyses or presenting p-values [2]. When we conduct these statistical tests, all p-values are > 0.20 except race, which is < 0.001. Regardless of which correction is used for multiple comparisons; the interpretation of these p-values would be the same and only race would be significant.

Our goal was to describe the performance of diagnostic criteria derived and validated in other settings and to determine if their performance was sufficient for the acute care setting. The study was powered to achieve this goal [1]. We did not seek to and were not powered to rederive or to test various iterations/cutoffs of the previously published criteria. Therefore, there was no ROC curve analysis to perform. We agree that rigorous derivation and validation of a more effective rule is critical and being pursued in our ongoing work [3].

We agree that long-term patient-centered clinical outcomes must be considered including the side effects of inappropriately prescribed medications (over-diagnosis) [4] and the delay of appropriate medications (under-diagnosis) [5, 6]. The request for patient-centered outcomes such as these is an important but different study that we and others have attempted to answer with results consistently demonstrating potential patient harm from both types of mis-diagnosis [7-9]. Notably previous results demonstrated high diagnostic uncertainty [10], supporting the assertion that before we can affect those outcomes in a prospective study, we must ensure that we can accurately and reliably diagnose pneumonia in the emergency department. While we were not powered to report on outcomes such as mortality, we have previously published on some patient-centered outcomes such as functional decline in this study population.

Unfortunately, in older adults, accurate diagnosis of pneumonia in the emergency department remains a challenge and thus, we agree with Turgut et al., that this is an important research priority and hope that our ongoing work can contribute to improving the care of older adult emergency department patients.

K.M.H. and J.M.C. obtained funding for this work and conceived the idea for this manuscript. K.M.H. and J.M.C. drafted the manuscript, performed revisions and contributed their expertise in the area.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

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
10.00
自引率
6.30%
发文量
504
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) is the go-to journal for clinical aging research. We provide a diverse, interprofessional community of healthcare professionals with the latest insights on geriatrics education, clinical practice, and public policy—all supporting the high-quality, person-centered care essential to our well-being as we age. Since the publication of our first edition in 1953, JAGS has remained one of the oldest and most impactful journals dedicated exclusively to gerontology and geriatrics.
×
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