• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Nursing Education and Practice >Classification of traumatic brain injury severity using retrospective data
【24h】

Classification of traumatic brain injury severity using retrospective data

机译：使用回顾性数据对脑外伤严重程度进行分类

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Objective: Accurate classification of traumatic brain injury (TBI) severity is essential to brain injury research. TBI heterogeneity complicates classification of the injury; is a significant barrier in the design of therapeutic interventions; and results in retrospective data which is difficult to translate. The objective of this study is to describe the differences in two current tools used in the classification of TBI severity, the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and the head Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS), using retrospective data to compare their performance.Methods: Using correlational and descriptive statistics, this study examined two TBI severity classification methods across a large sample of TBI patients (N = 56,131), who were treated at level I and level II trauma centers in the United States and were included in the 2010 National Sample Program (NSP) of the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB?).Results: The study population was 67% male, 67% non-Hispanic white, treated most often in trauma centers in the South (38%), with blunt trauma (93%) and from non-motor vehicle collisions (MVC’s) (56%). Observation of the AIS classification system demonstrated that it tends to over-score TBI severity compared to the GCS classification. The methods (GCS & AIS) had a weak, inverse relationship with a correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r) of -0.3980, which was significant at p < .001.Conclusions: The current study addressed the difficulties associated with categorizing TBI severity when analyzing retrospective data.? Although AIS is commonly used to classify severity in retrospective data when GCS is unavailable, the relationship between the two scales is relatively unknown. Results show that AIS and GCS are more closely related for severely brain injured patients but in cases of mild and moderate injury, AIS is less predictive of GCS. Since they are often used in conjunction in identifying brain injured severity in retrospective data, researchers cannot be certain that the tools are similarly classifying mild, moderate, and severe injuries. This study reinforces the need for additional TBI severity classification methods, such as neuroimaging techniques and biomarkers.
机译：目的：对创伤性脑损伤（TBI）严重程度进行准确分类对于研究脑损伤至关重要。 TBI异质性使损伤的分类变得复杂;在设计治疗干预措施时存在重大障碍;并产生难以转换的追溯数据。这项研究的目的是使用回顾性数据来比较TBI严重程度分类中当前使用的两种工具，格拉斯哥昏迷量表（GCS）和头部缩写损伤分数（AIS）之间的差异。相关性和描述性统计数据，这项研究对大量TBI患者（N = 56,131）进行了两种TBI严重度分类方法的研究，这些患者在美国的I级和II级创伤中心接受了治疗，并被纳入了2010年国家样本计划结果：该研究人群为男性67％，非西班牙裔白人67％，在南部创伤中心接受治疗最多（38％），创伤较钝（93） ％）和非机动车碰撞（MVC）（56％）。对AIS分类系统的观察表明，与GCS分类相比，它倾向于对TBI严重性进行评分。这些方法（GCS和AIS）具有弱的逆关系，相关系数（Pearson's r ）为-0.3980，在 p <.001时很显着。当前的研究解决了分析回顾性数据时与TBI严重性分类相关的困难。尽管在GCS不可用时，通常使用AIS对回顾性数据中的严重性进行分类，但相对未知两个量表之间的关系。结果表明，严重脑损伤患者的AIS和GCS密切相关，但是在轻度和中度损伤的情况下，AIS对GCS的预测性较低。由于在回顾性数据中经常将它们与识别脑损伤的严重程度结合使用，因此研究人员无法确定这些工具是否对轻度，中度和重度损伤进行了类似的分类。这项研究加强了对其他TBI严重性分类方法的需求，例如神经影像技术和生物标记物。

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