急危重症病情评估量表的系统评价

目的:系统评价急危重症评估量表,描述相关病情评估量表。方法:检索CNKI、VIP、CBM、万方、Pubmed、Medline,Embase和Cochrane 8个数据库,纳入病情评估相关量表的中英文研究,并收集量表及其研究的相关数据。结果:一共检索出7 192篇文章,经过查重、题目摘要、初筛、全文筛选后,纳入可获得全文文献18篇,最后纳入急危重症病情评估量表相关文献21篇,包括15个量表的21个研究;9个量表使用生命体征作为变量,剩下6个量表主要或部分依靠抽血化验;12个量表采用回归分析;11个量表使用病死率作为主要结局指标;12个量表阐述了分类功能,但只有8个量表的分类功能良好(AUROC0.8);7个量表阐述了如何进行校准;15个量表都没有提到其研制时的影响因素以及观察者间的一致性和可靠性分析;没有量表达到最高的证据等级。结论:本研究纳入的15个量表没有一个达到最高的证据等级,因此需要更多的研究对其进行外部验证以及影响因素的分析,从而使量表更好地发挥全面评估患者病情的功能。

Systematic review of the critical illness assessment scale

Objective To systematically evaluate the critical illness assessment scale, and to describe the related disease assessment scales and their research characteristics. Methods 8 databases including CNKI, VIP, CBM, Wan Fang, Pubmed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane were retrieved. They were included in the Chinese and English Studies on the scale of disease assessment, and the related data of the scale and its research were collected. Results a total of 7192 articles retrieved, after check, subject abstract, screening, full text screening, can obtain 18 references into the final, critical illness into the assessment scale of 21 literatures, including 15 scale 21; 9 scale use of vital signs as the remaining 6 variables, scale mainly or in part on blood tests; 12 scales by regression analysis; 11 scale using mortality as the primary outcome; 12 scale describes the classification function, but only 8 of the good classification function scale (AUROC>0.8); the 7 scales are elaborated calibration; consistency and reliability analysis of the 15 scales are not mentioned in the development of the influence factors and the inter observer; no scale to reach the highest level of evidence.Conclusion None of the 15 scales included in this study reached the highest level of evidence , so more research is needed to analyze the factors and the influence of external validation, so as to make the play scale better in patients with a comprehensive assessment of the function.