398 research outputs found

    Pitfalls in blood pressure measurement in daily practice

    Get PDF
    Background. Accurate blood pressure (BP) readings and correctly interpreting the obtained values are of great importance. However, there is considerable variation in the different BP measuring methods suggested in guidelines and used in hypertension trials. Objective. To compare the different methods used to measure BP; measuring once, the method used for a large study such as the UKPDS, and the methods recommended by various BP guidelines. Methods. In 223 patients with type 2 diabetes from five family practices BP was measured according to a protocol to obtain the following data: A = first reading, B = mean of two initial readings, C = at least four readings and the mean of the last three readings with less than 15% coefficient of variation difference, D = mean of the first two consecutive readings with a maximum of 5 mm Hg difference. Mean outcomes measure is the mean difference between different BP measuring methods in mm Hg. Results. Significant differences in systolic/diastolic BP were found between A and B [mean difference (MD) systolic BP 1.6 mm Hg, P < 0.001], B and C (MD 5.7/2.8 mm Hg, P < 0.001), B and D (MD 6.2/2.8 mm Hg, P < 0.001), A and C (MD 7.3/3.3 mm Hg), and A and D (MD 7.9/3.0 mm Hg, P < 0.001). Conclusion. Different methods to assess BP during one visit in the same patient lead to significantly different BP readings and can lead to overestimation of the mean BP. These differences are clinically relevant and show a gap between different methods in trials, guidelines and daily practice

    Symptoms and functional status of patients with disseminated cancer visiting outpatient departments

    Get PDF
    Considerable research has focused on pain and other symptoms in terminal cancer patients referred to hospices and palliative care services. These patients differ from Dutch cancer patients in the palliative stage of their disease because the latter are cared for by general practitioners at home and medical specialists in outpatient departments. To clarify the experience of these Dutch patients, a study was started to investigate the prevalence and severity of pain and other symptoms as well as the functional status of consecutive patients visiting oncology outpatient departments for follow-up. After randomization, one group (I) of patients was interviewed at home by a general practitioner using structured questionnaires. The other group (II) received the questionnaires by mail, and scored the symptoms independently. The results of the symptom assessment show that patients in groups I and II suffered 2.4 (SD = 1.7) and 2.8 (SD = 2.0) symptoms, respectively. Between 30% and 40% of all patients reported constipation, nausea, loss of appetite, coughing, and dyspnea. These percentages were 50% lower when only moderate, severe, or extremely distressing symptoms were included. Sixty percent of all patients had pain, and 20% indicated a daytime pain score of 5 or greater on a scale of 0 to 10. Functional status was measured by the COOPWONCA charts; the mean score for the charts "physical fitness" and "daily activities" was 1.5 points lower for cancer patients than a random sample from the community of the same age and gender. The findings of this study should motivate doctors to put more energy in symptom assessment and interventions in palliative care. Record 29 of 32 - SilverPlatter MEDLINE(R)
    • …
    corecore