Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

Psychological impact of fibromyalgia: current perspectives

Carmen M Galvez-S&aacute;nchez,1 Stefan Duschek,2 Gustavo A Reyes del Paso1 1Department of Psychology, University of Ja&eacute;n, Ja&eacute;n, Spain; 2Department of Psychology, University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria Abstract: Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a chronic disorder characterized by widespread and persistent musculoskeletal pain and other frequent symptoms such as fatigue, insomnia, morning stiffness, cognitive impairment, depression, and anxiety. FMS is also accompanied by different comorbidities like irritable bowel syndrome and chronic fatigue syndrome. Although some factors like negative events, stressful environments, or physical/emotional traumas may act as predisposing conditions, the etiology of FMS remains unknown. There is evidence of a high prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities in FMS (especially depression, anxiety, borderline personality, obsessive-compulsive personality, and post-traumatic stress disorder), which are associated with a worse clinical profile. There is also evidence of high levels of negative affect, neuroticism, perfectionism, stress, anger, and alexithymia in FMS patients. High harm avoidance together with high self-transcendence, low cooperativeness, and low self-directedness have been reported as temperament and character features in FMS patients, respectively. Additionally, FMS patients tend to have a negative self-image and body image perception, as well as low self-esteem and perceived self-efficacy. FMS reduces functioning in physical, psychological, and social spheres, and also has a negative impact on cognitive performance, personal relationships (including sexuality and parenting), work, and activities of daily life. In some cases, FMS patients show suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and consummated suicide. FMS patients perceive the illness as a stigmatized and invisible disorder, and this negative perception hinders their ability to adapt to the disease. Psychological interventions may constitute a beneficial complement to pharmacological treatments in order to improve clinical symptoms and reduce the impact of FMS on health-related quality of life. Keywords: fibromyalgia, background, psychological impact, patients&rsquo; experiences, personality, moo

Central sensitization in knee osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia: Beyond depression and anxiety

Objectives: To determine the psychopathological profile of patients with central sensitization (CS) in a sample of knee osteoarthritis, with and without CS, and fibromyalgia, and to compare their psychopathological profiles. Methods: The final sample consists of 19 patients with osteoarthritis and CS (mean 66.37 years ± 8.77), 41 osteoarthritis patients without CS (mean 66.8 ± 7.39 years), 47 fibromyalgia patients (mean 46.47 years ± 7.92) and 26 control subjects (mean 51.56 years ± 11.41). The psychopathological profile was evaluated with the Millon Multiaxial Clinical Inventory. Results: The average score of MCMI-III reflect higher scores in the fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis-CS groups. Patients with osteoarthritis-CS are more likely to report larger scores in Borderline and Major Depression scales. Fibromyalgia patients are more likely to report more increased scores in Somatoform and Major Depression, versus osteoarthritis-CS group. Fibromyalgia patients versus osteoarthritis without CS are more likely to report higher scores in Schizoid, Depression, Histrionic, Sadistic, Borderline, Somatoform, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depression scales. Discussion: Patients with CS have less differences in their psychopathological profiles as well as in both osteoarthritis groups and greatest differences are obtained between the fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis without CS, so perhaps presence of CS is the key to differentiate those groups and not chronic pain. An exhaustive assessment brings more accurate psychopathological profiles, thus better psychological treatment could be applied.This work was partially supported by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Grant PSI2014-53524-P and PSI2017-83777) and the Agency of University and Research Funding Management of the Catalonia Government (Research Groups SGR2017-1198). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript