...
首页> 外文期刊>Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine >Performance of NEWS2, RETTS, clinical judgment and the Predict Sepsis screening tools with respect to identification of sepsis among ambulance patients with suspected infection: a prospective cohort study
【24h】

Performance of NEWS2, RETTS, clinical judgment and the Predict Sepsis screening tools with respect to identification of sepsis among ambulance patients with suspected infection: a prospective cohort study

机译:新闻2,RETTS,临床判断和预测脓毒症筛查工具关于救护患者鉴定感染感染的脓毒症鉴定:一项预期队列研究

获取原文
           

摘要

There is little evidence of which sepsis screening tool to use in the ambulance setting. The primary aim of the current study was to compare the performance of NEWS2 (National Early Warning score 2) and RETTS (Rapid Emergency Triage and Treatment System) with respect to identification of sepsis among ambulance patients with clinically suspected infection. The secondary aim was to compare the performance of the novel Predict Sepsis screening tools with that of NEWS2, RETTS and clinical judgment. Prospective cohort study of 323 adult ambulance patients with clinically suspected infection, transported to hospitals in Stockholm, during 2017/2018. The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC (Area Under the receiver operating Curve) were calculated and compared by using McNemar′s test and DeLong’s test. The prevalence of sepsis in the current study population was 44.6% (144 of 323 patients). No significant difference in AUC was demonstrated between NEWS2?≥?5 and RETTS?≥?orange. NEWS2?≥?7 demonstrated a significantly greater AUC than RETTS red. The Predict Sepsis screening tools?≥?2 demonstrated the highest sensitivity (range 0.87–0.91), along with RETTS?≥?orange (0.83), but the lowest specificity (range 0.39–0.49). The AUC of NEWS2 (0.73) and the Predict Sepsis screening tools (range 0.75–0.77) was similar. The results indicate that NEWS2 could be the better alternative for sepsis identification in the ambulance, as compared to RETTS. The Predict Sepsis screening tools demonstrated a high sensitivity and AUCs similar to that of NEWS2. However, these results need to be interpreted with caution as the Predict Sepsis screening tools require external validation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03249597. Registered 15 August 2017—Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03249597 .
机译:几乎没有证据表明脓毒症筛查工具用于救护车设置。目前研究的主要目的是比较新闻2(全国预警成绩2)和Retts(快速急诊分类和治疗系统)对肠血管患者鉴定临床疑似感染的败血症的表现。二次目的是比较新型预测败血症筛查工具与新闻2,Retts和临床判断的性能。 323名成人救护患者临床疑似感染患者的前瞻性队列研究,在2017/2018年斯德哥尔摩运送到医院。通过使用MCNEMAR的测试和DELONG的测试来计算和比较敏感性,特异性和AUC(接收器操作曲线下的区域)。目前研究人群中脓毒症的患病率为44.6%(323名患者中的144例)。在News2之间证明了AUC的显着差异?≥≤5并将α≥?橙色。 News2?≥7预测败血症筛选工具?≥≤2显示最高的灵敏度(范围0.87-0.91),以及Retts?≥?橙色(0.83),但最低的特异性(范围为0.39-0.49)。新闻2(0.73)和预测败血症筛查工具(0.75-0.77)的AUC相似。结果表明,与Retts相比,新闻2可能是救护车中脓毒症识别的替代品。预测SEPSIS筛选工具展示了类似于新闻2的高灵敏度和AUC。但是,由于预测败血症筛选工具需要外部验证,因此需要谨慎地解释这些结果。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov,NCT03249597。注册2017年8月15日 - 回顾性注册,https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/nct03249597。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号