The comprehensive diagnostic study is suggested as a design to model the diagnostic process

AbstractObjectivesThe classical diagnostic cross-sectional study has a focus on one disease only. Generalist clinicians, however, are confronted with a wide range of diagnoses. We propose the “comprehensive diagnostic study design” to evaluate diagnostic tests regarding more than one disease outcome.Study Design and SettingWe present the secondary analysis of a data set obtained from patients presenting with chest pain in primary care. Participating clinicians recorded 42 items of the history and physical examination. Diagnostic outcomes were reviewed by an independent panel after 6-month follow-up (n = 710 complete cases). We used Shannon entropy as a measure of uncertainty before and after testing. Four different analytical strategies modeling specific clinical ways of reasoning were evaluated.ResultsAlthough the “global entropy” strategy reduced entropy most, it is unlikely to be of clinical use because of its complexity. “Inductive” and “fixed-set” strategies turned out to be efficient requiring a small amount of data only. The “deductive” procedure resulted in the smallest reduction of entropy.ConclusionWe suggest that the comprehensive diagnostic study design is a feasible and valid option to improve our understanding of the diagnostic process. It is also promising as a justification for clinical recommendations

Chest pain in primary care: is the localization of pain diagnostically helpful in the critical evaluation of patients? - A cross sectional study

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Traditional textbooks still assign pain localization a certain discriminative role in the differential diagnosis of chest pain. The aim of our study was to synthesize pain drawings from a large sample of chest pain patients and to examine whether pain localizations differ for different underlying etiologies. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study including 1212 consecutive patients with chest pain recruited in 74 primary care offices in Germany. Primary care providers (PCPs) marked pain localization and radiation of each patient on a pictogram. After 6 months, an independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient, deciding on the etiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment. PCP drawings were entered in a specially designed computer program to produce merged pain charts for different etiologies. Dissimilarities between individual pain localizations and differences on the level of diagnostic groups were analyzed using the Hausdorff distance and the C-index. RESULTS: Pain location in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) did not differ from the combined group of all other patients, including patients with chest wall syndrome (CWS), gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) or psychogenic chest pain. There was also no difference in chest pain location between male and female CHD patients. CONCLUSIONS: Pain localization is not helpful in discriminating CHD from other common chest pain etiologies

Heartburn or angina? Differentiating gastrointestinal disease in primary care patients presenting with chest pain: a cross sectional diagnostic study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Gastrointestinal (GI) disease is one of the leading aetiologies of chest pain in a primary care setting. The aims of the study are to describe clinical characteristics of GI disease causing chest pain and to provide criteria for clinical diagnosis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We included 1212 consecutive patients with chest pain aged 35 years and older attending 74 general practitioners (GPs). GPs recorded symptoms and findings of each patient and provided follow up information. An independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of each patient and decided about the aetiology of chest pain. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify clinical predictors that help to rule in or out the diagnosis of GI disease and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>GI disease was diagnosed in 5.8% and GERD in 3.5% of all patients. Most patients localised the pain retrosternal (71.8% for GI disease and 83.3% for GERD). Pain worse with food intake and retrosternal pain radiation were associated positively with both GI disease and GERD; retrosternal pain localisation, vomiting, burning pain, epigastric pain and an average pain episode < 1 hour were associated positively only with GI disease. Negative associations were found for localized muscle tension (GI disease and GERD) and pain getting worse on exercise, breathing, movement and pain location on left side (only GI disease).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study broadens the knowledge about the diagnostic accuracy of selected signs and symptoms for GI disease and GERD and provides criteria for primary care practitioners in rational diagnosis.</p

Causes of chest pain in primary care – a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim To investigate the frequencies of different and relevant underlying etiologies of chest pain in general practice. Methods We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE. Two reviewers independently rated the eligibility of publications and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We extracted data to calculate the relative frequencies of different underlying conditions and investigated the variation across studies using forest plots, I2, tau2, and prediction intervals. With respect to unexplained heterogeneity, we provided qualitative syntheses instead of pooled estimates. Results We identified 11 eligible studies comprising about 6500 patients. The overall risk of bias was rated as low in 6 studies comprising about 3900 patients. The relative frequencies of different conditions as the underlying etiologies of chest pain reported by these studies ranged from 24.5 to 49.8% (chest wall syndrome), 13.8 to 16.1% (cardiovascular diseases), 6.6 to 11.2% (stable coronary heart disease), 1.5 to 3.6% (acute coronary syndrome/myocardial infarction), 10.3 to 18.2% (respiratory diseases), 9.5 to 18.2% (psychogenic etiologies), 5.6 to 9.7% (gastrointestinal disorders), and 6.0 to 7.1% (esophageal disorders). Conclusion This information may be of practical value for general practitioners as it provides the pre-test probabilities for a range of underlying diseases and may be suitable to guide the diagnostic process

Accuracy of General Practitioners’ Assessment of Chest Pain Patients for Coronary Heart Disease in Primary Care: Cross-sectional Study with Follow-up

Aim To estimate how accurately general practitioners’ (GP) assessed the probability of coronary heart disease in patients presenting with chest pain and analyze the patient management decisions taken as a result. Methods During 2005 and 2006, the cross-sectional diagnostic study with a delayed-type reference standard included 74 GPs in the German state of Hesse, who enrolled 1249 consecutive patients presenting with chest pain. GPs recorded symptoms and findings for each patient on a report form. Patients and GPs were contacted 6 weeks and 6 months after the patients’ visit to the GP. Data on chest complaints, investigations, hospitalization, and medication were reviewed by an independent panel, with coronary heart disease being the reference condition. Diagnostic properties (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values) of the GPs’ diagnoses were calculated. Results GPs diagnosed coronary heart disease with the sensitivity of 69% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62-75) and specificity of 89% (95% CI, 87-91), and acute coronary syndrome with the sensitivity of 50% (95% CI, 36-64) and specificity of 98% (95% CI, 97-99). They assumed coronary heart disease in 245 patients, 41 (17%) of whom were referred to the hospital, 77 (31%) to a cardiologist, and 162 (66%) to electrocardiogram testing. Conclusions GPs’ evaluation of chest pain patients, based on symptoms and signs alone, was not sufficiently accurate for diagnosing or excluding coronary heart disease or acute coronary syndrome

Gender differences in presentation and diagnosis of chest pain in primary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Research related to gender differences in regard to Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) has been mainly conducted in hospital but not in primary care settings. We aimed to analyse gender differences in aetiology and clinical characteristics of chest pain and to provide gender related symptoms and signs associated with CHD.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We included 1212 consecutive patients with chest pain aged 35 years and older attending 74 general practitioners (GPs). GPs recorded symptoms and findings of each patient and provided follow up information. An independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient and decided about the aetiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify clinical predictors that help to rule in or out CHD in women and men.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Women showed more psychogenic disorders (women 11,2%, men 7.3%, p = 0.02), men suffered more from CHD (women 13.0%, men 17.2%, p = 0.04), trauma (women 1.8%, men 5.1%, p < 0.001) and pneumonia/pleurisy (women 1.3%, men 3.0%, p = 0.04) Men showed significantly more often chest pain localised on the right side of the chest (women 9.1%, men 25.0%, p = 0.01). For both genders known clinical vascular disease, pain worse with exercise and age were associated positively with CHD. In women pain duration above one hour was associated positively with CHD, while shorter pain durations showed an association with CHD in men. In women negative associations were found for stinging pain and in men for pain depending on inspiration and localised muscle tension.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We found gender differences in regard to aetiology, selected clinical characteristics and association of symptoms and signs with CHD in patients presenting with chest pain in a primary care setting. Further research is necessary to elucidate whether these differences would support recommendations for different diagnostic approaches for CHD according to a patient's gender.</p

Gender bias revisited: new insights on the differential management of chest pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chest pain is a common complaint and reason for consultation in primary care. Few data exist from a primary care setting whether male patients are treated differently than female patients. We examined whether there are gender differences in general physicians' (GPs) initial assessment and subsequent management of patients with chest pain, and how these differences can be explained</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a prospective study with 1212 consecutive chest pain patients. The study was conducted in 74 primary care offices in Germany from October 2005 to July 2006. After a follow up period of 6 months, an independent interdisciplinary reference panel reviewed clinical data of every patient and decided about the etiology of chest pain at the time of patient recruitment (delayed type-reference standard). We adjusted gender differences of six process indicators for different models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>GPs tended to assume that CHD is the cause of chest pain more often in male patients and referred more men for an exercise test (women 4.1%, men 7.3%, p = 0.02) and to the hospital (women 2.9%, men 6.6%, p < 0.01). These differences remained when adjusting for age and cardiac risk factors but ceased to exist after adjusting for the typicality of chest pain.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>While observed gender differences can not be explained by differences in age, CHD prevalence, and underlying risk factors, the less typical symptom presentation in women might be an underlying factor. However this does not seem to result in suboptimal management in women but rather in overuse of services for men. We consider our conclusions rather hypothesis generating and larger studies will be necessary to prove our proposed model.</p