首页> 外文期刊>Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine >Are all pulmonary embolism clinical decision rules equal?
【24h】

Are all pulmonary embolism clinical decision rules equal?

机译:所有肺栓塞的临床决策规则是否均等?

获取原文
           

摘要

Two clinical decision rules (CDRs) for pulmonaryembolism (PE) are the most widely used in dailypractice, the Wells rule (WR) and the revised Genevascore (RGS).1,2 Although both CDRs rely on clinicalindicators to calculate a patient’s probability for PE, thelatter uses only objective criteria, whereas the formeralso uses clinician judgment. Simplified versions of theseCDRs have emerged: the simplified Wells criteria(SWR) and the simplified revised Geneva score(SRGS).3,4 Paired head-to-head comparisons have beenpublished.
机译:日常操作中使用最广泛的两种肺栓塞(PE)临床决策规则(CDR),即Wells规则(WR)和经过修订的Genevascore(RGS)。1,2 ,后者仅使用客观标准,而前者也使用临床医生的判断。这些CDR的简化版本出现了:简化的Wells标准(SWR)和简化的经过修订的Geneva分数(SRGS)。3,4已发布了成对的头对头比较。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号