Triaging with Clinical Scoring Systems Can Reduce CT Use in Patients Suspected of Having Appendicitis

Abstract Purpose The association of bulimic symptoms with sensation seeking is uncertain; however, both behaviors have been linked to alcohol problems. We assessed in a longitudinal, community-based setting whether sensation seeking in adolescence is associated with bulimic symptoms in early adulthood, also accounting for alcohol problems. Methods Finnish men (N = 2000) and women (N = 2467) born between 1974–1979 completed Zuckerman’s sensation seeking scale (SSS) at age 18. Alcohol problems (Malmö-modified Michigan alcoholism screening test (Mm-MAST) and bulimic symptoms [eating disorder inventory-2, bulimia subscale (EDI-Bulimia), population and clinical scoring systems] were defined at age 22–27. We examined relationships between SSS, Mm-MAST, and EDI-Bulimia using Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) and linear regression. Results Alcohol problems were moderately correlated with sensation seeking and bulimic symptoms (population scoring) among women and men (r = 0.21–0.31). The correlation between sensation seeking and bulimic symptoms (population scoring) was weak among men (r = 0.06, p = 0.006) and even weaker and non-significant among women (r = 0.03, p = 0.214). Adjustment for alcohol problems removed the association between sensation seeking and bulimic symptoms among men. Furthermore, there were no significant correlations between sensation seeking and bulimic symptoms when assessing EDI-Bulimia clinical scoring. Conclusion Sensation seeking and bulimic symptoms were not associated among women. The association between sensation seeking and bulimic symptoms among men was entirely attributable to increased alcohol problems among those with higher sensation seeking. While this association may be important on the population level, its clinical significance may be minor. Level of evidence Level III, well-designed cohort study.

Download Full-text

Understanding Vascular Age: Are Clinical Scoring Systems Useful for Early Vascular Aging Syndrome Prediction? Methodological Issues

High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular Prevention ◽

10.1007/s40292-020-00423-9 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Siamak Sabour ◽

Hadis Ghajari

Keyword(s):

Scoring Systems ◽

Vascular Aging ◽

Methodological Issues ◽

Clinical Scoring ◽

Vascular Age

Download Full-text

Which Clinical Scoring Systems Are Most Useful in Showing Severity in COVID-19 Patients?

10.21203/rs.3.rs-362665/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Ishak San ◽

Emin Gemcioglu ◽

Salih Baser ◽

Nuray Yilmaz Cakmak ◽

Abdulsamet Erden ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Predictive Value ◽

Independent Predictor ◽

Severe Disease ◽

Scoring Systems ◽

High Risk Group ◽

World Health ◽

Severe Group ◽

Clinical Scoring

Abstract IntroductionIn this study, we compare the predictive value of clinical scoring systems that are already in use in patients with COVID-19, including the BCRSS, qSOFA, SOFA, MuLBSTA and HScore, for determining the severity of the disease. Our aim in this study is to determine which scoring system is most useful in determining disease severity and to guide clinicians.Materials and MethodsWe classified the patients into two groups according to the stage of the disease (severe and non-severe) by using the slightly modified and adopted interim guidance of the World Health Organization. Severe cases were divided into a group of surviving patients and a deceased group according to the prognosis. According to admission values, the BCRSS, qSOFA, SOFA, MuLBSTA, and HScore were evaluated at admission using the worst parameters available in the first 24 hours.ResultsOf the 417 patients included in our study, 46 (11%) were in the severe group, while 371 (89%) were in the non-severe group. Of these 417 patients, 230 (55.2%) were men. The median (IQR) age of all patients was 44 (25) years. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, BRCSS in the highest tertile (HR: 6.1, 95% CI: 2.105–17.674, p = 0.001) was determined as an independent predictor of severe disease in cases of COVID-19. In multivariate analyses, qSOFA was also found to be an independent predictor of severe COVID-19 (HR: 4.757, 95% CI: 1.438–15.730, p = 0.011). The area under the curve (AUC) of the BRCSS, qSOFA, SOFA, MuLBSTA, and HScore was 0.977, 0.961, 0.958, 0.860, and 0.698, respectively.ConclusionCalculation of the BRCSS and qSOFA at the time of hospital admission can predict critical clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19, and their predictive value is superior to that of HScore, MuLBSTA, and SOFA. With early identification of the high-risk group using BRCSS and qSOFA, early interventions for high-risk patients can improve clinical outcomes in COVID-19.

Download Full-text