Bias in the physical examination of patients with lumbar radiculopathy

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>No prior studies have examined systematic bias in the musculoskeletal physical examination. The objective of this study was to assess the effects of bias due to prior knowledge of lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging findings (MRI) on perceived diagnostic accuracy of the physical examination for lumbar radiculopathy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was a cross-sectional comparison of the performance characteristics of the physical examination with blinding to MRI results (the 'independent group') with performance in the situation where the physical examination was not blinded to MRI results (the 'non-independent group'). The reference standard was the final diagnostic impression of nerve root impingement by the examining physician. Subjects were recruited from a hospital-based outpatient specialty spine clinic. All adults age 18 and older presenting with lower extremity radiating pain of duration ≤ 12 weeks were evaluated for participation. 154 consecutively recruited subjects with lumbar disk herniation confirmed by lumbar spine MRI were included in this study. Sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence intervals were calculated in the independent and non-independent groups for the four components of the radiculopathy examination: 1) provocative testing, 2) motor strength testing, 3) pinprick sensory testing, and 4) deep tendon reflex testing.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The perceived sensitivity of sensory testing was higher with prior knowledge of MRI results (20% vs. 36%; p = 0.05). Sensitivities and specificities for exam components otherwise showed no statistically significant differences between groups.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Prior knowledge of lumbar MRI results may introduce bias into the pinprick sensory testing component of the physical examination for lumbar radiculopathy. No statistically significant effect of bias was seen for other components of the physical examination. The effect of bias due to prior knowledge of lumbar MRI results should be considered when an isolated sensory deficit on examination is used in medical decision-making. Further studies of bias should include surgical clinic populations and other common diagnoses including shoulder, knee and hip pathology.</p

Low CD4 count plus coma predicts cryptococcal meningitis in Tanzania

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Largely due to the lack of diagnostic reagents, the prevalence and clinical presentation of cryptococcal meningitis in Tanzania is poorly understood. This in turn is limiting the impact of increased fluconazole availability.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We evaluated a cohort of 149 consecutive HIV-infected adult inpatients presenting with headache or altered mental status for clinical features, CD4 count, cryptococcal infection, and outcome. Cryptococcal meningitis was diagnosed via India ink and latex agglutination assay of CSF (<it>n </it>= 24 and 40 positive, respectively). Associations between cryptococcal meningitis and clinical features were evaluated by t-test. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio of such features were determined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Cryptococcal meningitis was associated with confusion, social withdrawal, seizures, fever, tachycardia, meningismus, oral candidiasis, and low Glasgow coma scales and CD4 count. CD4 count < 100/μl provided the highest sensitivity for the diagnosis (93%), coma (Glasgow coma scale ≤ 8) provided the highest specificity (84%), and the combination provided the highest positive likelihood ratio (3.8). All cryptococcal meningitis patients were initiated on 800 milligrams of fluconazole daily and 50% survived to discharge, however no clinical or laboratory findings correlated with prognosis.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Cryptococcal meningitis is common among Tanzanian HIV inpatients presenting with headache or altered mental status. Purely clinical features are insensitive for establishing the diagnosis or prognosis. We advocate expanding laboratory capacity for cryptococcal antigen testing to maximize survival.</p

Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Performance of Risk Prediction Rules in Children and Young People with Febrile Neutropenia

Introduction: Febrile neutropenia is a common and potentially life-threatening complication of treatment for childhood cancer, which has increasingly been subject to targeted treatment based on clinical risk stratification. Our previous meta-analysis demonstrated 16 rules had been described and 2 of them subject to validation in more than one study. We aimed to advance our knowledge of evidence on the discriminatory ability and predictive accuracy of such risk stratification clinical decision rules (CDR) for children and young people with cancer by updating our systematic review. Methods: The review was conducted in accordance with Centre for Reviews and Dissemination methods, searching multiple electronic databases, using two independent reviewers, formal critical appraisal with QUADAS and meta-analysis with random effects models where appropriate. It was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42011001685. Results: We found 9 new publications describing a further 7 new CDR, and validations of 7 rules. Six CDR have now been subject to testing across more than two data sets. Most validations demonstrated the rule to be less efficient than when initially proposed; geographical differences appeared to be one explanation for this. Conclusion: The use of clinical decision rules will require local validation before widespread use. Considerable uncertainty remains over the most effective rule to use in each population, and an ongoing individual-patient-data meta-analysis should develop and test a more reliable CDR to improve stratification and optimise therapy. Despite current challenges, we believe it will be possible to define an internationally effective CDR to harmonise the treatment of children with febrile neutropenia

Conceptualization of category-oriented likelihood ratio: a useful tool for clinical diagnostic reasoning

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the diagnostic reasoning process medical students and novice physicians need to be made aware of the diagnostic values of the clinical findings (including history, signs, and symptoms) to make an appropriate diagnostic decision. Diagnostic reasoning has been understood in light of two paradigms on clinical reasoning: <it>problem solving </it>and <it>decision making</it>. They advocate the reasoning strategies used by expert physicians and the statistical models of reasoning, respectively. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) applies <it>decision theory </it>to the clinical diagnosis, which can be a challenging topic in medical education.</p> <p>This theoretical article tries to compare evidence-based diagnosis with expert-based strategies in clinical diagnosis and also defines a novel concept <it>of category-oriented likelihood ratio (LR) </it>to propose a new model combining both aforementioned methods.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Evidence-based medicine advocates the use of quantitative evidence to estimate the probability of diseases more accurately and objectively; however, the published evidence for a given diagnosis cannot practically be utilized in primary care, especially if the patient is complaining of a nonspecific problem such as abdominal pain that could have a long list of differential diagnoses. In this case, expert physicians examine the key clinical findings that could differentiate between broader categories of diseases such as organic and non-organic disease categories to shorten the list of differential diagnoses. To approach nonspecific problems, not only do the experts revise the probability estimate of specific diseases, but also they revise the probability estimate of the <it>categories of diseases </it>by using the available clinical findings.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>To make this approach analytical and objective, we need to know how much more likely it is for a key clinical finding to be present in patients with one of the diseases of a specific category versus those with a disease not included in that category. In this paper, we call this value <it>category-oriented LR</it>.</p

The added value of C-reactive protein to clinical signs and symptoms in patients with obstructive airway disease: results of a diagnostic study in primary care

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of clinical signs and symptoms, C-reactive protein (CRP) and spirometric parameters and determine their interrelation in patients suspected to have an obstructive airway disease (OAD) in primary care. METHODS: In a cross sectional diagnostic study, 60 adult patients coming to the general practitioner (GP) for the first-time with complaints suspicious for obstructive airway disease (OAD) underwent spirometry. Peak expiratory flow (PEF)-variability within two weeks was determined in patients with inconspicuous spirometry. Structured medical histories were documented and CRP was measured. The reference standard was the Tiffeneau ratio (FEV(1)/VC) in spirometry and the PEF-variability. OAD was diagnosed when FEV(1)/VC ≤ 70% or PEF-variability > 20%. RESULTS: 37 (62%) patients had OAD. The best cut-off value for CRP was found at 2 mg/l with a diagnostic odds ratio (OR) of 4.4 (95% CI 1.4–13.8). Self-reported wheezing was significantly related with OAD (OR 3.4; CI 1.1–10.3), whereas coughing was inversely related (OR 0.2; CI 0.1–0.7). The diagnostic OR of CRP increased when combined with dyspnea (OR 8.5; 95% CI 1.7–42.3) or smoking history (OR 8.4; 95% CI 1.5–48.9). CRP (p = 0.004), FEV(1 )(p = 0.001) and FIV(1 )(p = 0.023) were related with the severity of dyspnea. CRP increased with the number of cigarettes, expressed in pack years (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic accuracy of clinical signs and symptoms was low. The diagnostic accuracy of CRP improved in combination with dyspnea and smoking history. Due to their coherence with the severity of dyspnea and number of cigarettes respectively, CRP and spirometry might allow risk stratification of patients with OAD in primary care. Further studies need to be done to confirm these findings

A methodological framework to distinguish spectrum effects from spectrum biases and to assess diagnostic and screening test accuracy for patient populations: Application to the Papanicolaou cervical cancer smear test

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A spectrum effect was defined as differences in the sensitivity or specificity of a diagnostic test according to the patient's characteristics or disease features. A spectrum effect can lead to a spectrum bias when subgroup variations in sensitivity or specificity also affect the likelihood ratios and thus post-test probabilities. We propose and illustrate a methodological framework to distinguish spectrum effects from spectrum biases.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data were collected for 1781 women having had a cervical smear test and colposcopy followed by biopsy if abnormalities were detected (the reference standard). Logistic models were constructed to evaluate both the sensitivity and specificity, and the likelihood ratios, of the test and to identify factors independently affecting the test's characteristics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>For both tests, human papillomavirus test, study setting and age affected sensitivity or specificity of the smear test (spectrum effect), but only human papillomavirus test and study setting modified the likelihood ratios (spectrum bias) for clinical reading, whereas only human papillomavirus test and age modified the likelihood ratios (spectrum bias) for "optimized" interpretation.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Fitting sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios simultaneously allows the identification of covariates that independently affect diagnostic or screening test results and distinguishes spectrum effect from spectrum bias. We recommend this approach for the development of new tests, and for reporting test accuracy for different patient populations.</p

Estimated GFR reporting is not sufficient to allow detection of chronic kidney disease in an Italian regional hospital

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an emerging worldwide problem. The lack of attention paid to kidney disease is well known and has been described in previous publications. However, little is known about the magnitude of the problem in highly specialized hospitals where serum creatinine values are used to estimate GFR values.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a cross-sectional evaluation of hospitalized adult patients who were admitted to the medical or surgical department of Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital in 2007. Information regarding admissions was derived from a database. Our goal was to assess the prevalence of CKD (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 60 mL/min/1.73 m²) and detection of CKD using diagnostic codes (Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification [ICD-9-CM]). To reduce the impact of acute renal failure on the study, the last eGFR obtained during hospitalization was the value used for analysis, and intensive care and nephrology unit admissions were excluded. We also excluded patients who had ICD-9-CM codes for renal replacement therapy, acute renal failure, and contrast administration listed as discharge diagnoses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 18,412 patients included in the study, 4,748 (25.8%) had reduced eGFRs, falling into the category of Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) stage 3 (or higher) CKD. However, the diagnosis of CKD was only reported in 19% of these patients (904/4,748). It is therefore evident that there was a "gray area" corresponding to stage 3 CKD (eGFR 30-59 ml/min), in which most CKD diagnoses are missed. The ICD-9 code sensitivity for detecting CKD was significantly higher in patients with diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease (26.8%, 22.2%, and 23.7%, respectively) than in subjects without diabetes, hypertension, or cardiovascular disease (p < 0.001), but these values are low when the widely described relationship between such comorbidities and CKD is considered.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although CKD was common in this patient population at a large inpatient regional hospital, the low rates of CKD detection emphasize the primary role nephrologists must play in continued medical education, and the need for ongoing efforts to train physicians (particularly primary care providers) regarding eGFR interpretation and systematic screening for CKD in high-risk patients (i.e., the elderly, diabetics, hypertensives, and patients with CV disease).</p