论文部分内容阅读
目的:通过比较AIMS65评分与Glasgow-Blatchford评分在疾病危险分级及预后评估中的准确性,评价AIMS65评分的临床价值。方法:回顾性与前瞻性相结合的方式纳入342例急性上消化道出血(AUGIB)患者,分别计算患者的AIMS65评分与Glasgow-Blatchford评分,以危险分级、院内死亡、再出血为终点指标,绘制2种评价方式的ROC曲线,比较2种方法的曲线下面积(AUC)以评价2种方法的优劣。结果:AIMS65评分在评价危险分级方面略差于Glasgow-Blatchford评分,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);AIMS65评分在预测院内病死率、再次出血发生率方面优于Glasgow-Blatchford评分,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:AIMS65评分法使用简便,且准确性与Glasgow-Blatchford评分相当,值得临床推广。
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical value of the AIMS65 score by comparing the accuracy of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford score in the assessment of risk grade and prognosis. Methods: A retrospective and prospective combination of 342 patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (AUGIB) were included in the study. AIMS65 scores and Glasgow-Blatchford scores were calculated respectively. Endpoints of risk grade, in-hospital mortality and rebleeding were drawn and drawn The ROC curves of two evaluation methods were compared with the area under the curve (AUC) of the two methods to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods. Results: The AIMS65 score was slightly worse than Glasgow-Blatchford score in evaluating the risk grade, but the difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05). The AIMS65 score was superior to the Glasgow-Blatchford score in predicting in-hospital mortality and rebleeding rate The difference was not statistically significant (P> 0.05). Conclusion: AIMS65 score method is easy to use and accurate with the Glasgow-Blatchford score, worthy of clinical promotion.