地震相关挤压伤的SAFE QUAKE和透析评分的外部验证和比较。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Suleyman Alpar, Sarper Yilmaz, Çağrı Safa Buyurgan, Akif Yarkaç, Neslihan Ergun Suzer, Ali Cankut Tatlıparmak
{"title":"地震相关挤压伤的SAFE QUAKE和透析评分的外部验证和比较。","authors":"Suleyman Alpar, Sarper Yilmaz, Çağrı Safa Buyurgan, Akif Yarkaç, Neslihan Ergun Suzer, Ali Cankut Tatlıparmak","doi":"10.1186/s12873-025-01322-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare the predictive accuracy of two scoring systems-Seismic Assessment of Kidney Function to Rule Out Dialysis Requirement (SAFE-QUAKE) and the Dialysis Score-developed to assess the need for dialysis in patients with crush injuries admitted to the emergency department (ED) following the February 6 Türkiye earthquakes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective observational study, the performance of the SAFE-QUAKE and Dialysis Score systems were evaluated using data from a university hospital that was independent from the centers where these scores were originally developed. The study included patients admitted to the ED after the same earthquakes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The SAFE-QUAKE score demonstrated a higher negative predictive value (NPV) for ruling out dialysis (93.4%), whereas the Dialysis Score had superior positive predictive value (PPV) (71.0%). Although the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was higher for SAFE-QUAKE [0.894 (95% CI: 0.831-0.957)] than for the Dialysis Score [0.836 (95% CI: 0.738-0.934)], this difference was not statistically significant (Z = 1.415; p = 0.157). According to the Net Reclassification Index (NRI), SAFE-QUAKE provided a clear advantage in correctly reclassifying non-dialysis patients to a lower-risk category [NRI⁻ = 0.491 (95% CI: 0.321-0.643)], correctly downgrading 74.5% of such patients while misclassifying only 25.5%. Across various hypothetical prevalence rates, SAFE-QUAKE consistently provided higher NPVs (e.g., 98.9% at 5% prevalence), while the Dialysis Score maintained higher PPVs (e.g., 28% at 5% prevalence; 88.0% at 50% prevalence).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Following catastrophic disasters such as the February 6 Türkiye earthquakes, the capacity of healthcare facilities to provide dialysis becomes a key factor in ED decision-making. When patients are to be transferred to facilities without dialysis capabilities, triage based on the SAFE-QUAKE score can help safely identify those at low risk for dialysis. Conversely, if the receiving center has dialysis capacity, the Dialysis Score can be used to prioritize patients more likely to require dialysis. The sequential use of both scores may enhance triage accuracy by prioritizing SAFE-QUAKE for rapid ED assessment and Dialysis Score for refining interfacility transfer decisions based on resource intensity.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":9002,"journal":{"name":"BMC Emergency Medicine","volume":"25 1","pages":"164"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12366352/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"External validation and comparison of SAFE QUAKE and dialysis score in earthquake related crush injuries.\",\"authors\":\"Suleyman Alpar, Sarper Yilmaz, Çağrı Safa Buyurgan, Akif Yarkaç, Neslihan Ergun Suzer, Ali Cankut Tatlıparmak\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12873-025-01322-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to compare the predictive accuracy of two scoring systems-Seismic Assessment of Kidney Function to Rule Out Dialysis Requirement (SAFE-QUAKE) and the Dialysis Score-developed to assess the need for dialysis in patients with crush injuries admitted to the emergency department (ED) following the February 6 Türkiye earthquakes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective observational study, the performance of the SAFE-QUAKE and Dialysis Score systems were evaluated using data from a university hospital that was independent from the centers where these scores were originally developed. The study included patients admitted to the ED after the same earthquakes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The SAFE-QUAKE score demonstrated a higher negative predictive value (NPV) for ruling out dialysis (93.4%), whereas the Dialysis Score had superior positive predictive value (PPV) (71.0%). Although the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was higher for SAFE-QUAKE [0.894 (95% CI: 0.831-0.957)] than for the Dialysis Score [0.836 (95% CI: 0.738-0.934)], this difference was not statistically significant (Z = 1.415; p = 0.157). According to the Net Reclassification Index (NRI), SAFE-QUAKE provided a clear advantage in correctly reclassifying non-dialysis patients to a lower-risk category [NRI⁻ = 0.491 (95% CI: 0.321-0.643)], correctly downgrading 74.5% of such patients while misclassifying only 25.5%. Across various hypothetical prevalence rates, SAFE-QUAKE consistently provided higher NPVs (e.g., 98.9% at 5% prevalence), while the Dialysis Score maintained higher PPVs (e.g., 28% at 5% prevalence; 88.0% at 50% prevalence).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Following catastrophic disasters such as the February 6 Türkiye earthquakes, the capacity of healthcare facilities to provide dialysis becomes a key factor in ED decision-making. When patients are to be transferred to facilities without dialysis capabilities, triage based on the SAFE-QUAKE score can help safely identify those at low risk for dialysis. Conversely, if the receiving center has dialysis capacity, the Dialysis Score can be used to prioritize patients more likely to require dialysis. The sequential use of both scores may enhance triage accuracy by prioritizing SAFE-QUAKE for rapid ED assessment and Dialysis Score for refining interfacility transfer decisions based on resource intensity.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>Not applicable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9002,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"164\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12366352/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-025-01322-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-025-01322-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究旨在比较两种评分系统的预测准确性——地震肾功能评估以排除透析需求(safety - quake)和透析评分——用于评估2月6日基伊地震后急诊室(ED)收治的挤压伤患者的透析需求。方法:在这项回顾性观察性研究中,使用独立于最初开发这些评分的中心的大学医院的数据来评估SAFE-QUAKE和透析评分系统的性能。这项研究包括了在同样的地震后入院的病人。结果:SAFE-QUAKE评分在排除透析方面具有较高的阴性预测值(NPV)(93.4%),而透析评分具有较高的阳性预测值(PPV)(71.0%)。虽然SAFE-QUAKE组的受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUROC) [0.894 (95% CI: 0.831-0.957)]高于透析评分组[0.836 (95% CI: 0.738-0.934)],但差异无统计学意义(Z = 1.415; p = 0.157)。根据净重新分类指数(NRI), SAFE-QUAKE在正确地将非透析患者重新分类为低风险类别方面提供了明显的优势[NRI⁻= 0.491 (95% CI: 0.321-0.643)],正确地将74.5%的患者降为低风险类别,而错误分类的患者只有25.5%。在各种假设的患病率中,SAFE-QUAKE始终提供较高的npv(例如,在5%的患病率时为98.9%),而透析评分保持较高的ppv(例如,在5%的患病率时为28%;在50%的患病率时为88.0%)。结论:在2月6日日本地震等特大灾害发生后,医疗机构提供透析的能力成为ED决策的关键因素。当患者被转移到没有透析能力的机构时,基于SAFE-QUAKE评分的分诊可以帮助安全地识别透析风险低的患者。相反,如果接收中心有透析能力,透析评分可以用来优先考虑更可能需要透析的患者。顺序使用这两种评分可以提高分诊的准确性,优先考虑SAFE-QUAKE用于快速ED评估,而透析评分用于根据资源强度优化设施间转移决策。临床试验号:不适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

External validation and comparison of SAFE QUAKE and dialysis score in earthquake related crush injuries.

External validation and comparison of SAFE QUAKE and dialysis score in earthquake related crush injuries.

External validation and comparison of SAFE QUAKE and dialysis score in earthquake related crush injuries.

External validation and comparison of SAFE QUAKE and dialysis score in earthquake related crush injuries.

Background: This study aimed to compare the predictive accuracy of two scoring systems-Seismic Assessment of Kidney Function to Rule Out Dialysis Requirement (SAFE-QUAKE) and the Dialysis Score-developed to assess the need for dialysis in patients with crush injuries admitted to the emergency department (ED) following the February 6 Türkiye earthquakes.

Methods: In this retrospective observational study, the performance of the SAFE-QUAKE and Dialysis Score systems were evaluated using data from a university hospital that was independent from the centers where these scores were originally developed. The study included patients admitted to the ED after the same earthquakes.

Results: The SAFE-QUAKE score demonstrated a higher negative predictive value (NPV) for ruling out dialysis (93.4%), whereas the Dialysis Score had superior positive predictive value (PPV) (71.0%). Although the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was higher for SAFE-QUAKE [0.894 (95% CI: 0.831-0.957)] than for the Dialysis Score [0.836 (95% CI: 0.738-0.934)], this difference was not statistically significant (Z = 1.415; p = 0.157). According to the Net Reclassification Index (NRI), SAFE-QUAKE provided a clear advantage in correctly reclassifying non-dialysis patients to a lower-risk category [NRI⁻ = 0.491 (95% CI: 0.321-0.643)], correctly downgrading 74.5% of such patients while misclassifying only 25.5%. Across various hypothetical prevalence rates, SAFE-QUAKE consistently provided higher NPVs (e.g., 98.9% at 5% prevalence), while the Dialysis Score maintained higher PPVs (e.g., 28% at 5% prevalence; 88.0% at 50% prevalence).

Conclusion: Following catastrophic disasters such as the February 6 Türkiye earthquakes, the capacity of healthcare facilities to provide dialysis becomes a key factor in ED decision-making. When patients are to be transferred to facilities without dialysis capabilities, triage based on the SAFE-QUAKE score can help safely identify those at low risk for dialysis. Conversely, if the receiving center has dialysis capacity, the Dialysis Score can be used to prioritize patients more likely to require dialysis. The sequential use of both scores may enhance triage accuracy by prioritizing SAFE-QUAKE for rapid ED assessment and Dialysis Score for refining interfacility transfer decisions based on resource intensity.

Clinical trial number: Not applicable.

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
BMC Emergency Medicine
BMC Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
178
审稿时长
29 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Emergency Medicine is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all urgent and emergency aspects of medicine, in both practice and basic research. In addition, the journal covers aspects of disaster medicine and medicine in special locations, such as conflict areas and military medicine, together with articles concerning healthcare services in the emergency departments.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信