Validity of a multidimensional comprehensive psychosocial screening instrument based on the ESC cardiovascular prevention guidelines:Evidence from the general and cardiovascular patient population

Aim To evaluate the psychometric properties and validity of the updated version of the Dutch multidimensional Comprehensive Psychosocial Screening Instrument in patients with coronary heart disease and the general population, based upon guideline recommendations from the European Society for Cardiology. Method 678 participants (Mage = 48.2, SD = 16.8; 46% male) of the Dutch general population and 312 cardiac patients (Mage = 65.9, SD = 9.9; 77% male) who recently received percutaneous coronary intervention completed the Comprehensive Psychosocial Screening Instrument and validated questionnaires for depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), Type D personality (DS14), hostility (CMHS), anger (STAS-T), trauma (SRIP), and chronic work and family stress (ERI, MMQ-6). Results Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed that the eight screened risk factors were best measured as separate entities, rather than broader indications of distress. Inter-instrument agreement, assessed with the intraclass coefficient (ICC) and the screening accuracy indicators (receiving operator characteristic [ROC] curves, sensitivity, specificity, and the positive and negative predictive values [PPV; NPV]) were good for most screened risk factors. PPV was low in low prevalence risk factors like anxiety, trauma, and depression. Conclusion Overall, the current version of the Comprehensive Psychosocial Screening Instrument has an acceptable performance in both populations, with a fair to excellent level of agreement with established full questionnaires. Besides a few suggestions for further refinement, the screener may be implemented in primary care and cardiological practice

Psychometric properties of a German version of the neck pain and disability scale

The aim of this study is to evaluate the validity and the psychometric properties of a German version of the 20-item neck pain and disability scale (NPAD) for use in primary care settings. Four hundred and forty-eight participants from 15 general practices in the area of Göttingen Germany completed a multidimensional questionnaire including a newly developed German version of the NPAD (NPAD-d) and self-reported demographic and clinical information. Reliability was tested using Cronbach’s alpha. Item-to-total score correlations were analysed. Factor structure was explored by using unrestricted principal factor analysis. Construct validity of the NPAD-d was evaluated by simple correlation analyses (Pearson’s rho) with social and clinical characteristics. The discriminative abilities of the NPAD-d were examined by comparing differences between subgroups stratified on non-NPAD-d pain related characteristics using t tests for mean scores. Cronbach’s alpha of NPAD-d was 0.94. Item-to-total scale correlations ranged between 0.414 and 0.829. Exploratory principal factor analysis indicated that the NPAD-d covers one factor with an explained variance of 48%. Correlation analysis showed high correlations with criterion variables. The NAPD-d scores of subgroups of patients were significantly different showing good discriminative validity of the scale. The NPAD-d demonstrated good validity and reliability in this general practice setting. The NPAD-d may be useful in the clinical assessment process and the management of neck pain

Sensitivity to change of the Neck Pain and Disability Scale

The Neck Pain and Disability Scale (NPAD) is a 20-item instrument to measure neck pain and related disability. The aim of this study was to assess sensitivity to change of the NPAD. A total of 411 participants from 15 general practices in the middle of Germany completed a multidimensional questionnaire including the German version of the NPAD and self-reported demographic and clinical information. Sensitivity to change was analysed by linear regression analysis of the NPAD at follow-up and educational level, age class, depression, anxiety, and deficits in social support, respectively, and by Pearson’s correlation analyses between mean change in NPAD at follow-up and mean change in prognostic markers. Those having more than basic education (regression coefficient −7.2, p < 0.001) and/or being in a younger age class (−2.9, p = 0.020) consistently reported significantly lower average NPAD scores at follow-up compared to those with basic education and/or a older age class. In contrast, those who were classified to be depressed (regression coefficient 2.1, p < 0.001), anxious (1.9, p < 0.001), or having deficits in social support (5.5, p = 0.004) reported significantly higher NPAD scores. Change in depression, anxiety, and social support scale between baseline and follow-up was significantly correlated with change in the NPAD score. Hence, these data are in the direction anticipated across all baseline factors investigated. In conclusion, the NPAD seems to be a sensitive measure for use in clinical practice and future studies of neck pain and related disability

Natriuretic peptide vs. clinical information for diagnosis of left ventricular systolic dysfunction in primary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Screening of primary care patients at risk for left ventricular systolic dysfunction by a simple blood-test might reduce referral rates for echocardiography. Whether or not natriuretic peptide testing is a useful and cost-effective diagnostic instrument in primary care settings, however, is still a matter of debate.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, clinical information, and echocardiographic data of left ventricular systolic function were collected in 542 family practice patients with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. We determined the diagnostic power of the NT-proBNP assessment in ruling out left ventricular systolic dysfunction and compared it to a risk score derived from a logistic regression model of easily acquired clinical information.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>23 of 542 patients showed left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Both NT-proBNP and the clinical risk score consisting of dyspnea at exertion and ankle swelling, coronary artery disease and diuretic treatment showed excellent diagnostic power for ruling out left ventricular systolic dysfunction. AUC of NT-proBNP was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.92) with a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.98) and a specificity of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.50). AUC of the clinical risk score was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.91) with a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.98) and a specificity of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.67). 148 misclassifications using NT-proBNP and 55 using the clinical risk score revealed a significant difference (McNemar test; p < 0.001) that was based on the higher specificity of the clinical risk score.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The evaluation of clinical information is at least as effective as NT-proBNP testing in ruling out left ventricular systolic dysfunction in family practice patients at risk. If these results are confirmed in larger cohorts and in different samples, family physicians should be encouraged to rely on the diagnostic power of the clinical information from their patients.</p

CMS physics technical design report : Addendum on high density QCD with heavy ions

Peer reviewe