4.6 Article

External Validation of the Patient-Reported Villalta Scale for the Diagnosis of Postthrombotic Syndrome

期刊

THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
卷 122, 期 8, 页码 1379-1383

出版社

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1738-1313

关键词

deep vein thrombosis; postthrombotic syndrome; Villalta scale

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) [PJT 148716]
  2. Southern and Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority [2015112]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study validated the patient-reported Villalta scale version 2 (PRV2) as an acceptable tool for diagnosing and grading the severity of postthrombotic syndrome (PTS), showing a high level of agreement and sensitivity of 84% and specificity of 79%.
Introduction The Villalta scale is the endorsed tool to diagnose and grade the severity of postthrombotic syndrome (PTS); however, assessing presence and severity of PTS is time-consuming and relies on both the clinician and patient's assessments. The patient-reported Villalta scale version 2 (PRV2) is a visually assisted form that enables patients to self-assess presence and severity of PTS. Herein, we report on external validation of this tool. Methods We assessed the agreement and kappa values of PRV2 to diagnose and assess severity of PTS compared with the original Villalta score in a cohort of 181 patients (196 limbs) who participated in the SAVER pilot randomized control trial. Presence of PTS was defined as PRV2 >= 5 or a Villalta score >= 5. Results PTS prevalence was 42% using PRV2 and 33% using the Villalta scale. The corresponding kappa and percentage agreement were 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.71) and 81% (95% CI: 76-87), respectively. Kappa values and percentage agreements between PRV2 and Villalta scale increased with increasing severity of PTS. The sensitivity of PRV2 to detect PTS of any severity was 84% (95% CI: 73-92) with a specificity of 79% (95% CI: 71-86). Conclusion We conclude that the PRV2 is an acceptable tool for diagnosing and grading the severity of PTS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据