期刊文献+

3种认知功能障碍评定量表在中、重型颅脑损伤后患者120例的应用研究 被引量:13

Application study on 3 kinds of cognitive disorder assessment scale in 120 cases of moderate and severe traumatic brain injury
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的评价长谷川痴呆量表(HDS)、Blessed行为量表(BBS)和简易精神状态检查表(MMSE)3种量表在中、重型颅脑损伤后认知障碍测定中的应用价值。方法选取2009年12月至2010年10月于该院神经外科就诊确定为中、重型颅脑损伤后认知障碍患者120例为实验组。选取同期该院体检后确定为健康的志愿者120例为对照组,比较两组采用3种认知功能评价量表的评价结果。结果 MMSE、HDS、BBS的敏感度分别为66.7%、79.9%、93.2%。特异度分别为100.0%、84.9%、28.7%。结论 MMSE评价量表的特异度、阳性预测值较HDS和BBS评价量表高,BBS评价量表的敏感度较MMSE和HDS评价量表高。 Objective To evaluate the application value of 3 kinds of assessment scales,Kyohko Hasegawa’s dementia scale(HDS),the Blessed behavior scale(BBS) and the mini-mental state examination(MMSE) table,in cognitive disorder determination after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury.Methods 120 patients with cognitive disorder after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury in the neurosurgery department of this hospital from December 2009 to October 2010 were selected as the experimental group.Contemporaneous 120 healthy volunteers were selected as the control group.The two groups were performed the MMSE,HDS and BBS test and the test results were compared between the two groups.Results The sensitivity of MMSE,HDS and BBS was 66.7%,79.9% and 93.2% respectively.The specificity was 100.0%,84.9% and 28.7% respectively.The abilities of memory,directional force,calculation,visual space in patients of experimental group were seriously damaged.Conclusion The specificity and the positive predictive value in MMSE are higher than those in HDS and BBS.BBS has higher sensitivity than MMSE and HDS.
出处 《重庆医学》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2013年第9期988-989,991,共3页 Chongqing medicine
基金 河北省科研项目(102761119)
关键词 认知障碍 颅脑损伤 评价研究 cognitive barriers head injury evaluation studies
  • 相关文献

参考文献15

二级参考文献115

共引文献175

同被引文献117

  • 1朱成明,王贵富,张德明,褚先秋,姚文华.高血压脑出血150例不同手术方式治疗效果分析[J].实用医院临床杂志,2010,7(4):116-118. 被引量:13
  • 2桑德春,纪树荣,张缨,金萍.Fugl-Meyer量表在社区脑卒中康复疗效评定中的应用[J].中国康复医学杂志,2007,22(3):264-265. 被引量:183
  • 3师蔚,缪星宇.神经内镜技术在神经外科中的应用[J].中华神经外科疾病研究杂志,2007,6(2):187-188. 被引量:24
  • 4Alali AS, Naimark DM, Wilson JR, et al. Economic evaluation of decompressive craniectomy versus barbituerate coma for refractory intracranial hypertension following traumatic brain injury [ J]. CritCare Med, 2014, 42(10) :2235-2243.
  • 5江基尧.介绍一种临床常用的标准外伤大骨瓣开颅术[J].中华神经外科杂志,1998,14(6):381.
  • 6Honeybul S. Complications of decompressive craniectomy for head injury[ J]. J Clin Neurosci, 2010, 17 (a) :450-455.
  • 7Ho KM, Honeybul S, Litton E. Delayed neurological recovery af- ter deeompressive eraniectomy for severe nonpenetrating traumalic brain injury[J]. Crit Care Med, 2011,39(11) :2495-2500.
  • 8Kolias AG, Kirkpatrick PJ, Hutchinson PJ. Decompressive crauiectomy : past, present and future [ J ]. Nat Rev Neurol, 2013, 9(7) :405-415.
  • 9Grauwmeijer E, Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Ribbers GM. Health- related quality of life 3 years after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: a prospective cohort study[ J]. Arch Phys Med Re- habil, 2014, 95(7):1268-1276.
  • 10Llhan AH, Kutlay S, KtiqUukdeveci AA, et al. Psychometric properties of the mini-mental state examination in patients with acquired brain injury in Turkey [ J ]. J Rehabil Med, 2005, 37 (5) :306-311.

引证文献13

二级引证文献79

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部