Incidence of acute mountain sickness in young adults at 3200 meters: comparison of the Lake Louise Scoring and Chinese Scoring Systems

Chen, GZ; Qin, Jiaqian; J, Yu; Xb, Gao; Jq, Dong; Lü, Wei; Sz, Bian; Zeng, Ying; Huang, Lei

doi:10.4238/2013.december.16.5

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, due to the different symptoms and weights assigned, the incidence determined by the CAS assessment was higher than that by the LLS (59.3% vs 37.5%). This was consistent with previous studies [8,9]. The CAS had diagnostic accuracy for moderate and severe AMS similar to those of the LLS (16.9% vs 17.2%).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…[25] [26] [27] [11] Some Chinese scholars have studied the difference between the LLS and CAS in de ning AMS. Chen et al [9] surveyed 339 males residing at sea level who travelled by train and car to 3200 m. Wu et al [8] surveyed 58 males who went by train and recorded the AMS incidence when they reached different altitude sites, ending at 3658 m. They found that CAS outcomes were in good agreement with LLS outcomes and can accurately diagnose AMS, suggesting that combining the LLS and the CAS in applications of clinical diagnosis can more objectively diagnose AMS than one scoring system alone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of Acute Mountain Sickness: How to integrate the advantages of the Lake Louise Score and the Chinese AMS Score

Wu¹,

Zhong²,

Xie³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: To compare the differences in acute mountain sickness (AMS) incidence between two AMS diagnostic scoring criteria, including the Lake Louise Score and the Chinese AMS Score. Methods: A total of 2486 young men completed questionnaires after flying from Chendu (500 m) to Lasha (3658 m). The AMS incidence was investigated using a questionnaire that contained the scoring criteria for the LLS and CAS. To determine the grouping of all the symptoms on the AMS questionnaire, a systematic cluster analysis and two-step cluster analysis were used to analyse various symptoms and cases separately.Results: The AMS incidence was 37.5% (n = 932) according to the LLS, in which the cut-off point depended on headache and a total score ≥ 3, and 59.3% (n = 1473) according to the CAS, in which the cut-off point depended on headache, vomiting or a total score ≥ 5. The LLS and CAS outcomes had a significant positive correlation (Spearman’s rho = 0.918, P < 0.05) and were moderately consistent (kappa value = 0.488, P < 0.001). The positive AMS incidence determined by the CAS was significantly higher than that by the LLS (P < 0.001). Compared with the LLS, the sensitivity was 100%, the specificity was 65.23%, the positive predictive value was 63.34%, and the negative predictive value was 100% for the CAS in the diagnosis of AMS. The CAS identified all AMS subjects diagnosed by the LLS, and an additional 541 subjects. Of all the symptoms investigated, the dominant symptoms were fatigue (59.3%), dizziness (55.0%), headache (50.6%), chest tightness (40.4%), and shortness of breath (37.2%), and the last two symptoms were not included in the LLS. The cluster analysis show that chest distress, shortness of breath and palpitations were relatively independent of the major symptoms assessed by the LLS. Conclusion: The CAS had testing characteristics for diagnosing AMS similar to those of the Lake Louise Questionnaire Score, and the CAS diagnosed a higher prevalence of AMS than the LLS. It is suggested that chest distress and shortness of breath should be paid adequate attention and taken into account in AMS diagnostic criteria in the next revision to better diagnosis and study AMS.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Acute Mountain Sickness: How to integrate the advantages of the Lake Louise Score and the Chinese AMS Score

Wu¹,

Zhong²,

Xie³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In past studies, researchers have obtained different diagnosis results using the LLS. Vardy et al's 13 study indicated an AMS prevalence of 10% from 3000 to 4000 m, and Chen et al 19 found an AMS prevalence of 17.11% in 339 subjects at 3200 m. Newcomb et al 21 reported that 21% of subjects suffered AMS at 4470 m, and Van Roo et al's 14 study reported that 77.3% of subjects suffered AMS at 6962 m in Aconcagua. The prevalence of AMS assessed by the CAS was 60.3% in Tanggula and 63.8% in Lhasa.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences Between the “Chinese AMS Score” and the Lake Louise Score in the Diagnosis of Acute Mountain Sickness

Luo

2016

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Chinese AMS score (CAS) is used in clinical medicine and research to diagnosis acute mountain sickness (AMS). However, the Lake Louise Score (LLS) is the well-accepted standard for diagnosing AMS. The difference between the CAS and LLS questionnaires is that the CAS considers more nonspecific symptoms. The aim of the present study was to evaluate differences in AMS prevalence according to the LLS and CAS criteria. We surveyed 58 males who traveled from Chongqing (300 m) to Lhasa (3658 m) via the Qinghai-Tibet train. Cases of AMS were diagnosed using LLS and CAS questionnaires in a few railway stations at different evaluation areas along the road. We subsequently evaluated discrepancies in values related to the prevalence of AMS determined using the 2 types of questionnaires (CAS and LLS). The prevalence of CAS-diagnosed AMS indicated that the percentage of AMS cases among the 58 young men was 29.3% in Golmud, 60.3% in Tanggula, 63.8% in Lhasa, 22.4% on the first day after arrival in Lhasa, 27.6% on the second day, 24.1% on the third day, and 12.1% on the fourth day. The prevalence of LLS-diagnosed AMS in Golmud was 10.3%, 38% in Lhasa, and 6.9% on day 1, the prevalence in each station was lower than that as assessed by the CAS. Our experimental data indicate that AMS diagnoses ascertained using the CAS indicate a higher AMS prevalence than those ascertained using the LLS. Through statistical analysis, the CAS seems capable of effectively diagnosing AMS as validated by LLS (sensitivity 61.8%, specificity 92.7%).

show abstract

“…Acute mountain sickness is a syndrome due to the rapid ascending to high-altitude in aviators and mountaineers [4][5][6]. It may be a serious health problem especially in physically inactive subjects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

High altitude may affect cardiac structure in smoking subjects

Öztürk¹,

Aparcı²,

Öztürk³

et al. 2015

International Journal of Cardiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incidence of acute mountain sickness in young adults at 3200 meters: comparison of the Lake Louise Scoring and Chinese Scoring Systems

Cited by 11 publications

References 16 publications

Assessment of Acute Mountain Sickness: How to integrate the advantages of the Lake Louise Score and the Chinese AMS Score

Assessment of Acute Mountain Sickness: How to integrate the advantages of the Lake Louise Score and the Chinese AMS Score

Differences Between the “Chinese AMS Score” and the Lake Louise Score in the Diagnosis of Acute Mountain Sickness

High altitude may affect cardiac structure in smoking subjects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About