不同评分方法对急诊抢救室患者预后治疗效果的评估价值比较.docVIP

不同评分方法对急诊抢救室患者预后治疗效果的评估价值比较 【摘要】目的：比较两种评分方法对进入急诊抢救室患者的预后评估效果。方法：回顾性总结我院收治的进入急诊抢救室治疗患者88例资料，按照预后评分方法不同分为两组，分别评估后统计治疗生存率情况并进行比较。结果：两组患者均随着评分分值的增大，治疗预后效果降低；两组评分方法的F检验结果均表现为各组间的评分生存率情况不一致（P0.05，拒绝H0假设，接受H1假设），而LSD两两比较结果显示：观察组各组评分的预后生存情况差异具有统计学意义（P0.05）,对照组两两比较结果提示：0分与1分组差别无统计学意义（P0.05），其余各组比较结果差异具有统计学意义（P0.05）；观察组ROC曲线的AUC值=0.91，SE值为0.04，明显优于对照组统计资料。结论：MEWS评分方法对进入急诊抢救室患者具有更优秀的预后评估效果。 【关键词】急诊抢救室, 患者, 预后评估 Comparison of the value of different score method to evaluate the therapeutic effect of emergency patients in resuscitation room [Abstract] Objective: To compare the effect of two kinds of prognostic scoring method for emergency resuscitation room patients. Methods: retrospective analysis of our hospital in emergency resuscitation room treatment data of 88 patients with, in accordance with the prognostic scores were divided into two groups, respectively, after evaluation of statistical treatment survival rate and comparing. Results: the two groups of patients with increasing score, reduce the effectiveness of treatment prognosis; two groups score method of F test results showed the survival rate among the groups were not consistent (P0.05, reject the H0 hypothesis, H1 hypothesis), and LSD two two comparison results showed: the survival difference of view observation group score was statistically significant (P0.05), the control group of two two comparative results suggest: 0 points and 1 groups had no significant difference (P0.05), the other groups were compared statistically significant difference (P0.05); observation group ROC curve and AUC values of =0.91, SE value was 0.04, significantly better than the control group statistical data. Conclusion: the MEWS score method has better prognostic effect of emergency patients in resuscitation room. [keyword] emergency resuscitation room, patients, prognosis 进入急诊抢救室进行抢救的患者一般病情比较危重，有很多潜在的危险性因素，对该类患者进行早期的预后疗效评估具有重要的临床意义[1]，目前在临床上对进入抢救室的危重患者治疗预后评估的方法一般采用全身炎症反应综合症（SIRS）评分方法等第三代危重患者的评分系统[2]，虽然能够比较全面的反映出患者抢救预后情况，但是这种评分方法具有评分过程复杂和