@article{JTD10693,
author = {Che-Chia Chang and Tzu-Ping Chen and Chi-Hsiao Yeh and Pin-Fu Huang and Yao-Chang Wang and Shun-Ying Yin},
title = {A simple weighted scoring system to guide surgical decision-making in patients with parapneumonic pleural effusion},
journal = {Journal of Thoracic Disease},
volume = {8},
number = {11},
year = {2016},
keywords = {},
abstract = {Background: The selection of ideal candidates for surgical intervention among patients with parapneumonic pleural effusion remains challenging. In this retrospective study, we sought to identify the main predictors of surgical treatment and devise a simple scoring system to guide surgical decision-making.
Method: Between 2005 and 2014, we identified 276 patients with parapneumonic pleural effusion. Patients in the training set (n=201) were divided into two groups according to their treatment modality (non-surgery vs. surgery). Using multivariable logistic regression analysis, we devised a scoring system to guide surgical decision-making. The score was subsequently validated in an independent set of 75 patients.
Results: A white blood cell count >13,500/µL, pleuritic pain, loculations, and split pleura sign were identified as independent predictors of surgical treatment. A weighted score based on these factors was devised, as follows: white blood cell count >13,500/µL (one point), pleuritic pain (one point), loculations (two points), and split pleura sign (three points). A score >4 was associated with a surgical approach with a sensitivity of 93.4%, a specificity of 82.4%, and an area under curve (AUC) of 0.879 (95% confidence interval: 0.828−0.930). In the validation set, a sensitivity of 94.3% and a specificity of 79.6% were found (AUC=0.869).
Conclusions: The proposed scoring system reliably identifies patients with parapneumonic pleural effusion who are candidates for surgery. Pending independent external validation, our score may inform the appropriate use of surgical interventions in this clinical setting.},
issn = {2077-6624}, url = {https://jtd.amegroups.org/article/view/10693}
}