| 贾景涵,谷晓玲,张欣蕊,黄争光,崔昕,田华雨.儿童哮喘风险评估工具的范围综述[J].上海护理,2025,25(9): |
| 儿童哮喘风险评估工具的范围综述 |
| Scoping Review of risk assessment tools for childhood asthma |
| 投稿时间：2024-12-13 修订日期：2025-08-27 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 儿童 哮喘 风险评估工具 预测工具 范围综述 |
| 英文关键词:Children Asthma Risk Assessment Tools Predictive tools Scope Overview |
| 基金项目:国家自然科学基金项目（面上项目，重点项目，重大项目） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 928 |
| 全文下载次数: 0 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 对儿童哮喘风险评估工具进行范围综述，为我国儿童哮喘发作预测提供适用性工具及改 进建议。方法 系统检索PubMed、Embase、Web of Science核心合集、Cochrane Library、中国知网、万方 及维普中有关儿童哮喘风险预测工具的研究，检索时限为建库至2024年4月10日。筛选符合纳入标准 的文献，提取文献中风险评估工具的具体信息，包括工具名称、国家/发表年份、预测年龄段、预测方式、 影响因素、受试者操作特征曲线下面积（AUC）、灵敏度、特异度、工具特点等。结果 共纳入22篇文献， 涉及16个儿童哮喘风险评估工具（评分系统7个、预测模型5个、量表2个、问卷1个、生物指标1个），其 中15项研究报告了AUC为0.590～0.912，有6项研究AUC>0.8；纳入的大部分工具都有明确的评分标 准，且多个工具的分值区间内存在截断值，用以区分低风险和高风险的哮喘患者；儿童哮喘风险评估工 具主要包含临床症状、家族史、客观检查、环境因素与基本特征这5个影响因素维度，共计21个影响因 子。结论 目前儿童哮喘风险评估工具的效能较好，但在评估内容选择和效果评价的方面存在一定局 限性。未来应对现有的工具进行完善，或构建低偏倚风险、高适用性的本土化儿童哮喘风险评估工具。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective: To conduct a scoping review on risk assessment tools for childhood asthma, aiming to provide applicable tools and improvement suggestions for predicting childhood asthma attacks in China.
Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Library, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang Data, and VIP for studies on risk prediction tools for childhood asthma. The search period spanned from the inception of each database to April 10, 2024. Literature that met the inclusion criteria was screened, and specific information on the risk assessment tools was extracted, including tool name, country/publication year, predicted age range, prediction method, influencing factors, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and tool characteristics.
Results: A total of 22 studies were included, involving 16 risk assessment tools for childhood asthma (7 scoring systems, 5 prediction models, 2 scales, 1 questionnaire, and 1 biological indicator). Among them, 15 studies reported AUC values ranging from 0.590 to 0.912, with 6 studies having an AUC > 0.8. Most of the included tools had clear scoring criteria, and multiple tools featured cutoff values within their score ranges to distinguish between low-risk and high-risk asthma patients. The risk assessment tools for childhood asthma primarily encompassed five influencing factor dimensions: clinical symptoms, family history, objective examinations, environmental factors, and basic characteristics, totaling 21 influencing factors. Conclusion: Currently, risk assessment tools for childhood asthma demonstrate relatively good efficacy. However, there are certain limitations in terms of assessment content selection and effectiveness evaluation. Future efforts should focus on improving existing tools or developing localized risk assessment tools for childhood asthma with low bias risk and high applicability. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|