中华医学杂志
中華醫學雜誌
중화의학잡지
National Medical Journal of China
2015年
39期
3173-3175
,共3页
张青%王小亭%张宏民%周翔%何怀武%刘大为%孙国强%俞佩之
張青%王小亭%張宏民%週翔%何懷武%劉大為%孫國彊%俞珮之
장청%왕소정%장굉민%주상%하부무%류대위%손국강%유패지
危险性评估%判定支持系统,临床%评价研究
危險性評估%判定支持繫統,臨床%評價研究
위험성평고%판정지지계통,림상%평개연구
Risk assessment%Decision support system,clinical%Evaluation studies
目的 评价重症临床急性生理学及慢性健康状况评分系统(APACHEⅡ)评分与人工评分的一致性.方法 收集2013年8至9月间北京协和医院重症医学科人工APACHEⅡ评分表的历史表单160例,按照人工评分的表单在信息系统查找对应的患者的重症临床APACHEⅡ系统评分,按照APACHEⅡ评分的每个选项进行比较,观察临床信息系统评分和人工评分是否存在一致性.结果 总分为193.4分比127.6分,P=0.001;年龄为161.4分比159.6分;P=0.862;体温为169.6分比151.4分,P=0.027;平均动脉压为190.8分比130.2分,P=0.001;心率为181.8分比139.3分,P=0.001;呼吸频率为191.4分比129.6分,P=0.001;氧分压为152.5分比168.5分,P=0.001;pH为174.0分比147.0分,P=0.001;血钠为161.5分比159.6分,P=0.576;血钾为163.4分比157.6分,P=0.457;肌酐为177.2分比143.8分,P=0.001;红细胞压积166.2分比154.8分,P=0.199;白细胞为167.8分比153.2分,P=0.054;格拉斯哥评分和器官功能衰竭选项不进行比较.结论 重症临床信息系统评分比人工评分分值高,系统评分更准确、更客观.
目的 評價重癥臨床急性生理學及慢性健康狀況評分繫統(APACHEⅡ)評分與人工評分的一緻性.方法 收集2013年8至9月間北京協和醫院重癥醫學科人工APACHEⅡ評分錶的歷史錶單160例,按照人工評分的錶單在信息繫統查找對應的患者的重癥臨床APACHEⅡ繫統評分,按照APACHEⅡ評分的每箇選項進行比較,觀察臨床信息繫統評分和人工評分是否存在一緻性.結果 總分為193.4分比127.6分,P=0.001;年齡為161.4分比159.6分;P=0.862;體溫為169.6分比151.4分,P=0.027;平均動脈壓為190.8分比130.2分,P=0.001;心率為181.8分比139.3分,P=0.001;呼吸頻率為191.4分比129.6分,P=0.001;氧分壓為152.5分比168.5分,P=0.001;pH為174.0分比147.0分,P=0.001;血鈉為161.5分比159.6分,P=0.576;血鉀為163.4分比157.6分,P=0.457;肌酐為177.2分比143.8分,P=0.001;紅細胞壓積166.2分比154.8分,P=0.199;白細胞為167.8分比153.2分,P=0.054;格拉斯哥評分和器官功能衰竭選項不進行比較.結論 重癥臨床信息繫統評分比人工評分分值高,繫統評分更準確、更客觀.
목적 평개중증림상급성생이학급만성건강상황평분계통(APACHEⅡ)평분여인공평분적일치성.방법 수집2013년8지9월간북경협화의원중증의학과인공APACHEⅡ평분표적역사표단160례,안조인공평분적표단재신식계통사조대응적환자적중증림상APACHEⅡ계통평분,안조APACHEⅡ평분적매개선항진행비교,관찰림상신식계통평분화인공평분시부존재일치성.결과 총분위193.4분비127.6분,P=0.001;년령위161.4분비159.6분;P=0.862;체온위169.6분비151.4분,P=0.027;평균동맥압위190.8분비130.2분,P=0.001;심솔위181.8분비139.3분,P=0.001;호흡빈솔위191.4분비129.6분,P=0.001;양분압위152.5분비168.5분,P=0.001;pH위174.0분비147.0분,P=0.001;혈납위161.5분비159.6분,P=0.576;혈갑위163.4분비157.6분,P=0.457;기항위177.2분비143.8분,P=0.001;홍세포압적166.2분비154.8분,P=0.199;백세포위167.8분비153.2분,P=0.054;격랍사가평분화기관공능쇠갈선항불진행비교.결론 중증림상신식계통평분비인공평분분치고,계통평분경준학、경객관.
Objective To evaluate the accuracy of APACHE Ⅱ score derived from critical clinic information system compared with artificial method.Methods The APACHE Ⅱ score derived from critical clinical information system (simple called system score) from August 1st to September 1st 2013 were collected.Each of the results including overall score subtitle were compared with the corresponding score calculated through artificial method.Results there is big difference between the two methods both between overall score and subtitle score.overall score (193.4) vs.(127.6) (P =0.001);age: (161.4) vs.(159.6) (P =0.862);Temperature : (169.6) vs.(151.4) (P =0.027);MAP: (190.8) vs.(130.2) (P=0.001);HR:(181.8) vs.(139.3) (P=0.001);RR:(191.4) vs.(129.6) (P=0.001);PaO2: (152.5) vs.(168.5) (P=0.001);pH:(174.0) vs.(147.0) vs.(P=0.001);Na+:(161.5) vs.(159.6) (P=0.576);K+ :(163.4) vs.(157.6) (P=0.457);CR:(177.2) vs (143.8) (P=0.001);HCT:(166.2) vs.(154.8) (P=0.199);WBC:(167.8) vs.(153.2) (P=0.054);Items of GCS and Organ Failure were not being compared.Conclusion The APACHE Ⅱ score obtained from critical clinic information system is more accurate and more objective.
