急诊分诊台
医学
科克伦图书馆
数据提取
梅德林
急诊医学
创伤中心
毒物控制
紧急医疗服务
严重创伤
诊断准确性
系统回顾
荟萃分析
医疗急救
回顾性队列研究
外科
内科学
政治学
法学
作者
Gordon Fuller,Abdullah Pandor,Munira Essat,L. Sabir,Helen Buckley‐Woods,Hridesh Chatha,Chris Holt,Samuel Keating,Janette Turner
标识
DOI:10.1097/ta.0000000000003039
摘要
BACKGROUND Older adults with major trauma are frequently undertriaged, increasing the risk of preventable morbidity and mortality. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of prehospital triage tools to identify suspected elderly trauma patients in need of specialized trauma care. METHODS Several electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to February 2019. Prospective or retrospective diagnostic studies were eligible if they examined prehospital triage tools as index tests (either scored theoretically using observed patient variables or evaluated according to actual paramedic transport decisions) compared with a reference standard for major trauma in elderly adults who require transport by paramedics following injury. Selection of studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool were undertaken independently by at least two reviewers. Narrative synthesis was used to summarize the findings. RESULTS Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, with 11 studies examining theoretical accuracy, three evaluating real-life transport decisions, and one assessing both (of 21 individual index tests). Estimates for sensitivity and specificity were highly variable with sensitivity estimates ranging from 19.8% to 95.5% and 57.7% to 83.3% for theoretical accuracy and real life triage performance, respectively. Specificity results were similarly diverse ranging from 17.0% to 93.1% for theoretical accuracy and 46.3% to 78.9% for actual paramedic decisions. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias and applicability concerns. There were no obvious differences between different triage tools, and findings did not appear to vary systematically with major trauma prevalence, age, alternative reference standards, study designs, or setting. CONCLUSION Existing prehospital triage tools may not accurately identify elderly patients with serious injury. Future work should focus on more relevant reference standards, establishing the best trade-off between undertriage and overtriage, optimizing the role prehospital clinician judgment, and further developing geriatric specific triage variables and thresholds. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic review, level III.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI