4.4 Article

A clinical decision model identifies patients at risk for delayed diagnosed injuries after high-energy trauma

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 20, 期 3, 页码 167-172

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MEJ.0b013e328353d926

关键词

delayed diagnosed injuries; high-energy trauma; missed injuries; tertiary survey; trauma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Tertiary trauma survey is widely implemented in trauma care to identify all injuries in trauma patients. However, various studies consistently show that some trauma patients have missed injuries. In this study, we developed a clinical decision model to identify patients who are at risk for delayed diagnosed injuries. Methods During a period of 18 months, we collected the medical records of all the adult patients who presented after a high-energy trauma at the emergency department of a Dutch trauma centre. The type of trauma, patient characteristics, the radiology studies performed, Glasgow Coma Scale, Revised Trauma Score, and Injury Severity Score (ISS) were registered. We thoroughly screened all medical records for delayed diagnosed injuries. Stepwise logistic regression analysis was used to identify the variables associated with the outcome delayed diagnosed injuries and to develop a clinical prediction model. Results We included 475 patients. Thirteen (2.7%) patients with delayed diagnosed injuries were identified. Stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed several models with the ISS, ICU admittance, and CT-head as predictive variables. The model we proposed with the ISS could identify patients who are at a risk for delayed diagnosed injuries with a sensitivity of 92.3% and a specificity of 86.4%. Conclusion Our newly developed clinical decision model can identify patients who are at a risk for delayed diagnosed injuries and who should undergo an intensified search for potential unidentified injuries. European Journal of Emergency Medicine 20:167-172 (c) 2013 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

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

4.4
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