Severity score system for progressive myelopathy: development and validation of a new clinical scale

Progressive myelopathies can be secondary to inborn errors of metabolism (IEM) such as mucopolysaccharidosis, mucolipidosis, and adrenomyeloneuropathy. The available scale, Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, was validated only for degenerative vertebral diseases. Our objective is to propose and validate a new scale addressing progressive myelopathies and to present validating data for JOA in these diseases. A new scale, Severity Score System for Progressive Myelopathy (SSPROM), covering motor disability, sphincter dysfunction, spasticity, and sensory losses. Inter- and intra-rater reliabilities were measured. External validation was tested by applying JOA, the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), the Barthel index, and the Osame Motor Disability Score. Thirty-eight patients, 17 with adrenomyeloneuropathy, 3 with mucopolysaccharidosis I, 3 with mucopolysaccharidosis IV, 2 with mucopolysaccharidosis VI, 2 with mucolipidosis, and 11 with human T-cell lymphotropic virus type-1 (HTLV-1)-associated myelopathy participated in the study. The mean ± SD SSPROM and JOA scores were 74.6 ± 11.4 and 12.4 ± 2.3, respectively. Construct validity for SSPROM (JOA: r = 0.84, P < 0.0001; EDSS: r = -0.83, P < 0.0001; Barthel: r = 0.56, P < 0.002; Osame: r = -0.94, P < 0.0001) and reliability (intra-rater: r = 0.83, P < 0.0001; inter-rater: r = 0.94, P < 0.0001) were demonstrated. The metric properties of JOA were similar to those found in SSPROM. Several clinimetric requirements were met for both SSPROM and JOA scales. Since SSPROM has a wider range, it should be useful for follow-up studies on IEM myelopathies.

Global validation of the WSES Sepsis Severity Score for patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections: a prospective multicentre study (WISS Study).

BACKGROUND To validate a new practical Sepsis Severity Score for patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) including the clinical conditions at the admission (severe sepsis/septic shock), the origin of the cIAIs, the delay in source control, the setting of acquisition and any risk factors such as age and immunosuppression. METHODS The WISS study (WSES cIAIs Score Study) is a multicenter observational study underwent in 132 medical institutions worldwide during a four-month study period (October 2014-February 2015). Four thousand five hundred thirty-three patients with a mean age of 51.2 years (range 18-99) were enrolled in the WISS study. RESULTS Univariate analysis has shown that all factors that were previously included in the WSES Sepsis Severity Score were highly statistically significant between those who died and those who survived (p < 0.0001). The multivariate logistic regression model was highly significant (p < 0.0001, R2 = 0.54) and showed that all these factors were independent in predicting mortality of sepsis. Receiver Operator Curve has shown that the WSES Severity Sepsis Score had an excellent prediction for mortality. A score above 5.5 was the best predictor of mortality having a sensitivity of 89.2 %, a specificity of 83.5 % and a positive likelihood ratio of 5.4. CONCLUSIONS WSES Sepsis Severity Score for patients with complicated Intra-abdominal infections can be used on global level. It has shown high sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio that may help us in making clinical decisions.

A Novel Acute Retroviral Syndrome Severity Score Predicts the Key Surrogate Markers for HIV-1 Disease Progression.

OBJECTIVE: Best long-term practice in primary HIV-1 infection (PHI) remains unknown for the individual. A risk-based scoring system associated with surrogate markers of HIV-1 disease progression could be helpful to stratify patients with PHI at highest risk for HIV-1 disease progression. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 290 individuals with well-documented PHI in the Zurich Primary HIV-1 Infection Study, an open-label, non-randomized, observational, single-center study. Patients could choose to undergo early antiretroviral treatment (eART) and stop it after one year of undetectable viremia, to go on with treatment indefinitely, or to defer treatment. For each patient we calculated an a priori defined "Acute Retroviral Syndrome Severity Score" (ARSSS), consisting of clinical and basic laboratory variables, ranging from zero to ten points. We used linear regression models to assess the association between ARSSS and log baseline viral load (VL), baseline CD4+ cell count, and log viral setpoint (sVL) (i.e. VL measured ≥90 days after infection or treatment interruption). RESULTS: Mean ARSSS was 2.89. CD4+ cell count at baseline was negatively correlated with ARSSS (p = 0.03, n = 289), whereas HIV-RNA levels at baseline showed a strong positive correlation with ARSSS (p<0.001, n = 290). In the regression models, a 1-point increase in the score corresponded to a 0.10 log increase in baseline VL and a CD4+cell count decline of 12/µl, respectively. In patients with PHI and not undergoing eART, higher ARSSS were significantly associated with higher sVL (p = 0.029, n = 64). In contrast, in patients undergoing eART with subsequent structured treatment interruption, no correlation was found between sVL and ARSSS (p = 0.28, n = 40). CONCLUSION: The ARSSS is a simple clinical score that correlates with the best-validated surrogate markers of HIV-1 disease progression. In regions where ART is not universally available and eART is not standard this score may help identifying patients who will profit the most from early antiretroviral therapy.

Status Epilepticus Severity Score (STESS): a tool to orient early treatment strategy

BACKGROUND : Status epilepticus (SE) treatment ranges from small benzodiazepine doses to coma induction. For some SE subgroups, it is unclear how the risk of an aggressive therapeutic approach balances with outcome improvement. We recently developed a prognostic score (Status Epilepticus Severity Score, STESS), relying on four outcome predictors (age, history of seizures, seizure type and extent of consciousness impairment), determined before treatment institution. Our aim was to assess whether the score might have a role in the treatment strategy choice. METHODS : This cohort study involved adult patients in three centers. For each patient, the STESS was calculated before primary outcome assessment: survival vs. death at discharge. Its ability to predict survival was estimated through the negative predictive value for mortality (NPV). Stratified odds ratios (OR) for mortality were calculated considering coma induction as exposure; strata were defined by the STESS level. RESULTS : In the observed 154 patients, the STESS had an excellent negative predictive value (0.97). A favorable STESS was highly related to survival (P < 0.001), and to return to baseline clinical condition in survivors (P < 0.001). The combined Mantel-Haenszel OR for mortality in patients stratified after coma induction and their STESS was 1.5 (95 % CI: 0.59-3.83). CONCLUSION : The STESS reliably identifies SE patients who will survive. Early aggressive treatment could not be routinely warranted in patients with a favorable STESS, who will almost certainly survive their SE episode. A randomized trial using this score would be needed to confirm this hypothesis.

Reliability of nasal auscultation and their relation to middle ear condition – a clinical interest to pediatrics respiratory physiotherapy

Background: Acute respiratory infections are usual in children under three years old occurring in upper respiratory tract, having an impact on child and caregiver’s quality of life predisposing to otitis media or bronchiolitis. There are few valid and reliable measures to determine the child’s respiratory condition and to guide the physiotherapy intervention. Aim: To assess the intra and inter rater reliability of nasal auscultation, to analyze the relation between sounds’ classification and middle ear’s pressure and compliance as well as with the Clinical Severity Score. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was composed by 125 nursery children aged up to three years old. Tympanometry, pulmonary and nasal auscultation and application of Clinical Severity Score were performed to each child. Nasal auscultation sounds’ were recorded and sent to 3 blinded experts, that classified, as “obstructed” and “unobstructed”, with a 48 hours interval, in order to analyze inter and intra rater reliability. Results: Nasal auscultation revealed a substantial inter and intra rater reliability (=0,749 and evaluator A - K= 0,691; evaluator B - K= 0,605 and evaluator C - K= 0,724, respectively). Both ears’ pressure was significantly lower in children with an "unobstructed" nasal sound when compared with an “obstructed” nasal sound (t=-3,599, p<0,001 in left ear; t=-2,258, p=0,026 in right ear). Compliance in both ears was significantly lower in children with an "obstructed" nasal sound when compared with “unobstructed” nasal sound (t=-2,728, p=0,007 in left ear; t=-3,830, p<0,001 in right ear). There was a statistically significant association between sounds’ classification and tympanograms types in both ear’s (=11,437, p=0,003 in left ear; =13,535, p=0,001 in right ear). There was a trend to children with an "unobstructed" nasal sound that had a lower clinical severity score when compared with “obstructed” children. Conclusion: It was observed a good intra and substantial inter reliability for nasal auscultation. Nasal auscultation sounds’ classification was related to middle ears’ pressure and compliance.

Ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care patients with chest pain : a clinical prediction score

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Chest pain raises concern for the possibility of coronary heart disease. Scoring methods have been developed to identify coronary heart disease in emergency settings, but not in primary care. METHODS: Data were collected from a multicenter Swiss clinical cohort study including 672 consecutive patients with chest pain, who had visited one of 59 family practitioners' offices. Using delayed diagnosis we derived a prediction rule to rule out coronary heart disease by means of a logistic regression model. Known cardiovascular risk factors, pain characteristics, and physical signs associated with coronary heart disease were explored to develop a clinical score. Patients diagnosed with angina or acute myocardial infarction within the year following their initial visit comprised the coronary heart disease group. RESULTS: The coronary heart disease score was derived from eight variables: age, gender, duration of chest pain from 1 to 60 minutes, substernal chest pain location, pain increases with exertion, absence of tenderness point at palpation, cardiovascular risks factors, and personal history of cardiovascular disease. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was of 0.95 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.92; 0.97. From this score, 413 patients were considered as low risk for values of percentile 5 of the coronary heart disease patients. Internal validity was confirmed by bootstrapping. External validation using data from a German cohort (Marburg, n = 774) revealed a receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.72; 0.81) with a sensitivity of 85.6% and a specificity of 47.2%. CONCLUSIONS: This score, based only on history and physical examination, is a complementary tool for ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care patients complaining of chest pain.

The role of the New Trauma and Injury Severity Score (NTRISS) for survival prediction

The objective of this study was to verify if replacing the Injury Severity Score (ISS) by the New Injury Severity Score (NISS) in the original Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) form would improve the survival rate estimation. This retrospective study was performed in a level I trauma center during one year. ROC curve was used to identify the best indicator (TRISS or NTRISS) for survival probability prediction. Participants were 533 victims, with a mean age of 38±16 years. There was predominance of motor vehicle accidents (61.9%). External injuries were more frequent (63.0%), followed by head/neck injuries (55.5%). Survival rate was 76.9%. There is predominance of ISS scores ranging from 9-15 (40.0%), and NISS scores ranging from 16-24 (25.5%). Survival probability equal to or greater than 75.0% was obtained for 83.4% of the victims according to TRISS, and for 78.4% according to NTRISS. The new version (NTRISS) is better than TRISS for survival prediction in trauma patients.

Desempenho dos ajustes do Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS): revisão integrativa

RESUMO Objetivo identificar estudos que realizaram ajustes na equação do Trauma and InjurySeverity Score (TRISS) e compararam a capacidade discriminatória da equação modificada com a original. Método Revisão integrativa de pesquisas publicadas entre 1990 e 2014 nas bases de dados LILACS, MEDLINE, PubMed e SciELO utilizando-se a palavra TRISS. Resultados foram incluídos 32 estudos na revisão. Dos 67 ajustes de equações do TRISS identificados, 35 (52,2%) resultaram em melhora na acurácia do índice para predizer a probabilidade de sobrevida de vítimas de trauma. Ajustes dos coeficientes do TRISS à população de estudo foram frequentes, mas nem sempre melhoraram a capacidade preditiva dos modelos analisados. A substituição de variáveis fisiológicas do Revised Trauma Score (RTS) e modificações do Injury Severity Score (ISS) na equação original tiveram desempenho variado. A mudança na forma de inclusão da idade na equação, assim como a inserção do gênero, comorbidades e mecanismo do trauma apresentaram tendência de melhora do desempenho do TRISS. Conclusão Diferentes propostas de ajustes no TRISS foram identificadas nesta revisão e indicaram, principalmente, fragilidades do RTS no modelo original e necessidade de alteração da forma de inclusão da idade na equação para melhora da capacidade preditiva do índice.

Implementation study of a clinical prediction score to rule out cardiogenic chest pain in community: Cluster randomized trial

1.1 Fundamentals Chest pain is a common complaint in primary care patients (1 to 3% of all consultations) (1) and its aetiology can be miscellaneous, from harmless to potentially life threatening conditions. In primary care practice, the most prevalent aetiologies are: chest wall syndrome (43%), coronary heart disease (12%) and anxiety (7%) (2). In up to 20% of cases, potentially serious conditions as cardiac, respiratory or neoplasic diseases underlie chest pain. In this context, a large number of laboratory tests are run (42%) and over 16% of patients are referred to a specialist or hospitalized (2).¦A cardiovascular origin to chest pain can threaten patient's life and investigations run to exclude a serious condition can be expensive and involve a large number of exams or referral to specialist -­‐ often without real clinical need. In emergency settings, up to 80% of chest pains in patients are due to cardiovascular events (3) and scoring methods have been developed to identify conditions such as coronary heart disease (HD) quickly and efficiently (4-­‐6). In primary care, a cardiovascular origin is present in only about 12% of patients with chest pain (2) and general practitioners (GPs) need to exclude as safely as possible a potential serious condition underlying chest pain. A simple clinical prediction rule (CPR) like those available in emergency settings may therefore help GPs and spare time and extra investigations in ruling out CHD in primary care patients. Such a tool may also help GPs reassure patients with more common origin to chest pain.

Ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care patients with chest pain: a clinical prediction score.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Chest pain raises concern for the possibility of coronary heart disease. Scoring methods have been developed to identify coronary heart disease in emergency settings, but not in primary care. METHODS: Data were collected from a multicenter Swiss clinical cohort study including 672 consecutive patients with chest pain, who had visited one of 59 family practitioners' offices. Using delayed diagnosis we derived a prediction rule to rule out coronary heart disease by means of a logistic regression model. Known cardiovascular risk factors, pain characteristics, and physical signs associated with coronary heart disease were explored to develop a clinical score. Patients diagnosed with angina or acute myocardial infarction within the year following their initial visit comprised the coronary heart disease group. RESULTS: The coronary heart disease score was derived from eight variables: age, gender, duration of chest pain from 1 to 60 minutes, substernal chest pain location, pain increases with exertion, absence of tenderness point at palpation, cardiovascular risks factors, and personal history of cardiovascular disease. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was of 0.95 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.92; 0.97. From this score, 413 patients were considered as low risk for values of percentile 5 of the coronary heart disease patients. Internal validity was confirmed by bootstrapping. External validation using data from a German cohort (Marburg, n = 774) revealed a receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.72; 0.81) with a sensitivity of 85.6% and a specificity of 47.2%. CONCLUSIONS: This score, based only on history and physical examination, is a complementary tool for ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care patients complaining of chest pain.

Validation of a clinical prediction score for ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care patients with chest pain.

Background: A patient's chest pain raises concern for the possibility of coronary heart disease (CHD). An easy to use clinical prediction rule has been derived from the TOPIC study in Lausanne. Our objective is to validate this clinical score for ruling out CHD in primary care patients with chest pain. Methods: This secondary analysis used data collected from a oneyear follow-up cohort study attending 76 GPs in Germany. Patients attending their GP with chest pain were questioned on their age, gender, duration of chest pain (1-60 min), sternal pain location, pain increases with exertion, absence of tenderness point at palpation, cardiovascular risks factors, and personal history of cardiovascular disease. Area under the curve (ROC), sensitivity and specificity of the Lausanne CHD score were calculated for patients with full data. Results: 1190 patients were included. Full data was available for 509 patients (42.8%). Missing data was not related to having CHD (p = 0.397) or having a cardiovascular risk factor (p = 0.275). 76 (14.9%) were diagnosed with a CHD. Prevalence of CHD were respectively of 68/344 (19.8%), 2/62 (3.2%), 6/103 (5.8%) in the high, intermediate and low risk category. ROC was of 72.9 (CI95% 66.8; 78.9). Ruling out patients with low risk has a sensitivity of 92.1% (CI95% 83.0; 96.7) and a specificity of 22.4% (CI95% 18.6%; 26.7%). Conclusion: The Lausanne CHD score shows reasonably good sensitivity and can be used to rule out coronary events in patients with chest pain. Patients at risk of CHD for other rarer reasons should nevertheless also be investigated.

Social factors related to the clinical severity of influenza cases in Spain during the A(H1N1)2009 virus pandemic

Background During the 2009 influenza pandemic, a change in the type of patients most often affected by influenza was observed. The objective of this study was to assess the role of individual and social determinants in hospitalizations due to influenza A (H1N1) 2009 infection. Methods We studied hospitalized patients (cases) and outpatients (controls) with confirmed influenza A (H1N1) 2009 infection. A standardized questionnaire was used to collect data. Variables that might be related to the hospitalization of influenza cases were compared by estimation of the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the variables entered into binomial logistic regression models. Results Hospitalization due to pandemic A (H1N1) 2009 influenza virus infections was associated with non-Caucasian ethnicity (OR: 2.18, 95% CI 1.17 − 4.08), overcrowding (OR: 2.84, 95% CI 1.20 − 6.72), comorbidity and the lack of previous preventive information (OR: 2.69, 95% CI: 1.50 − 4.83). Secondary or higher education was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36 − 0.87) Conclusions In addition to individual factors such as comorbidity, other factors such as educational level, ethnicity or overcrowding were associated with hospitalization due to A (H1N1) 2009 influenza virus infections.

Social factors related to the clinical severity of influenza cases in Spain during the A(H1N1)2009 virus pandemic

Background During the 2009 influenza pandemic, a change in the type of patients most often affected by influenza was observed. The objective of this study was to assess the role of individual and social determinants in hospitalizations due to influenza A (H1N1) 2009 infection. Methods We studied hospitalized patients (cases) and outpatients (controls) with confirmed influenza A (H1N1) 2009 infection. A standardized questionnaire was used to collect data. Variables that might be related to the hospitalization of influenza cases were compared by estimation of the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the variables entered into binomial logistic regression models. Results Hospitalization due to pandemic A (H1N1) 2009 influenza virus infections was associated with non-Caucasian ethnicity (OR: 2.18, 95% CI 1.17 − 4.08), overcrowding (OR: 2.84, 95% CI 1.20 − 6.72), comorbidity and the lack of previous preventive information (OR: 2.69, 95% CI: 1.50 − 4.83). Secondary or higher education was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36 − 0.87) Conclusions In addition to individual factors such as comorbidity, other factors such as educational level, ethnicity or overcrowding were associated with hospitalization due to A (H1N1) 2009 influenza virus infections.

Discrete distributions when modeling the disability severity score of motor victims

Many European states apply score systems to evaluate the disability severity of non-fatal motor victims under the law of third-party liability. The score is a non-negative integer with an upper bound at 100 that increases with severity. It may be automatically converted into financial terms and thus also reflects the compensation cost for disability. In this paper, discrete regression models are applied to analyze the factors that influence the disability severity score of victims. Standard and zero-altered regression models are compared from two perspectives: an interpretation of the data generating process and the level of statistical fit. The results have implications for traffic safety policy decisions aimed at reducing accident severity. An application using data from Spain is provided.

Modelling the disability severity score in motor insurance claims: an application to the Spanish case

Bodily injury claims have the greatest impact on the claim costs of motor insurance companies. The disability severity of motor claims is assessed in numerous European countries by means of score systems. In this paper a zero inflated generalized Poisson regression model is implemented to estimate the disability severity score of victims in-volved in motor accidents on Spanish roads. We show that the injury severity estimates may be automatically converted into financial terms by insurers at any point of the claim handling process. As such, the methodology described may be used by motor insurers operating in the Spanish market to monitor the size of bodily injury claims. By using insurance data, various applications are presented in which the score estimate of disability severity is of value to insurers, either for computing the claim compensation or for claim reserve purposes.