1,011 research outputs found

    Patient Preferences for Diagnostic Testing in the Emergency Department: A Crossâ sectional Study

    Full text link
    BackgroundDiagnostic testing is common during emergency department (ED) visits. Little is understood about patient preferences for such testing. We hypothesized that a patient’s willingness to undergo diagnostic testing is influenced by the potential benefit, risk, and personal cost.MethodsWe conducted a cross sectional survey among ED patients for diagnostic testing in two hypothetical scenarios: chest pain (CP) and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). Each scenario defined specific risks, benefits, and costs of testing. The odds of a participant desiring diagnostic testing were calculated using a series of nested multivariable logistic regression models.ResultsParticipants opted for diagnostic testing 68.2% of the time, including 69.7% of CP and 66.7% of all mTBI scenarios. In the CP scenario, 81% of participants desired free testing versus 59% when it was associated with a 100copay(differenceA^ =22100 copay (difference = 22%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 16% to 28%). Similarly, in the mTBI scenario, 73% of adult participants desired free testing versus 56% when charged a 100 copayment (difference = 17%, 95% CI = 11% to 24%). Benefit and risk had mixed effects across the scenarios. In fully adjusted models, the association between cost and desire for testing persisted in the CP (odds ratio [OR] = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.47) and adult mTBI (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.67) scenarios.ConclusionsIn this EDâ based study, patient preferences for diagnostic testing differed significantly across levels of risk, benefit, and cost of diagnostic testing. Cost was the strongest and most consistent factor associated with decreased desire for testing.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144652/1/acem13404.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144652/2/acem13404_am.pd

    Salience-based selection: attentional capture by distractors less salient than the target

    Get PDF
    Current accounts of attentional capture predict the most salient stimulus to be invariably selected first. However, existing salience and visual search models assume noise in the map computation or selection process. Consequently, they predict the first selection to be stochastically dependent on salience, implying that attention could even be captured first by the second most salient (instead of the most salient) stimulus in the field. Yet, capture by less salient distractors has not been reported and salience-based selection accounts claim that the distractor has to be more salient in order to capture attention. We tested this prediction using an empirical and modeling approach of the visual search distractor paradigm. For the empirical part, we manipulated salience of target and distractor parametrically and measured reaction time interference when a distractor was present compared to absent. Reaction time interference was strongly correlated with distractor salience relative to the target. Moreover, even distractors less salient than the target captured attention, as measured by reaction time interference and oculomotor capture. In the modeling part, we simulated first selection in the distractor paradigm using behavioral measures of salience and considering the time course of selection including noise. We were able to replicate the result pattern we obtained in the empirical part. We conclude that each salience value follows a specific selection time distribution and attentional capture occurs when the selection time distributions of target and distractor overlap. Hence, selection is stochastic in nature and attentional capture occurs with a certain probability depending on relative salience

    Differences in Atherosclerotic Plaque Burden and Morphology Between Type 1 and 2 Diabetes as Assessed by Multislice Computed Tomography

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE It is unclear whether the coronary atherosclerotic plaque burden is similar in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. By using multislice computed tomography (MSCT), the presence, degree, and morphology of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes were compared. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Prospectively, coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring and MSCT coronary angiography were performed in 135 asymptomatic patients (65 patients with type 1 diabetes and 70 patients with type 2 diabetes). The presence and extent of coronary atherosclerosis as well as plaque phenotype were assessed and compared between groups. RESULTS No difference was observed in average CAC score (217 +/- 530 vs. 174 +/- 361) or in the prevalence of coronary atherosclerosis (65% vs. 71%) in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. However, the prevalence of obstructive atherosclerosis was higher in patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 24; 34%) compared with that in patients with type 1 diabetes (n = 11; 17%) (P = 0.02). In addition, a higher mean number of atherosclerotic and obstructive plaques was observed in patients with type 2 diabetes. In addition, the percentage of noncalcified plaques was higher in patients with type 2 (66%) versus type 1 diabetes (27%) (P <0.001), resulting in a higher plaque burden for each CAC score compared with that in type 1 diabetic patients. CONCLUSIONS Although CAC scores and the prevalence of coronary atherosclerosis were similar between patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, CAD was more extensive in the latter. Also, a relatively higher proportion of noncalcified plaques was observed in patients with type 2 diabetes. These observations may be valuable in the development of targeted management strategies adapted to diabetes typ

    Q^2 Dependence of the S_{11}(1535) Photocoupling and Evidence for a P-wave resonance in eta electroproduction

    Full text link
    New cross sections for the reaction epeηpep \to e'\eta p are reported for total center of mass energy WW=1.5--2.3 GeV and invariant squared momentum transfer Q2Q^2=0.13--3.3 GeV2^2. This large kinematic range allows extraction of new information about response functions, photocouplings, and ηN\eta N coupling strengths of baryon resonances. A sharp structure is seen at WW\sim 1.7 GeV. The shape of the differential cross section is indicative of the presence of a PP-wave resonance that persists to high Q2Q^2. Improved values are derived for the photon coupling amplitude for the S11S_{11}(1535) resonance. The new data greatly expands the Q2Q^2 range covered and an interpretation of all data with a consistent parameterization is provided.Comment: 31 pages, 9 figure

    Survival outcomes and clinical benefit in patients with acute myeloid leukemia treated with glasdegib and low-dose cytarabine according to response to therapy

    Get PDF
    Background: The phase 2 BRIGHT AML 1003 trial evaluated efficacy and safety of glasdegib + low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. The multicenter, open-label study randomized patients to receive glasdegib + LDAC (n = 78) or LDAC alone (n = 38). The rate of complete remission (CR) was 19.2% in the glasdegib + LDAC arm versus 2.6% in the LDAC arm (P = 0.015). Methods: This post hoc analysis determines whether the clinical benefits of glasdegib are restricted to patients who achieve CR, or if they extend to those who do not achieve CR. Results: In patients who did not achieve CR, the addition of glasdegib to LDAC improved overall survival (OS) versus LDAC alone (hazard ratio = 0.63 [95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.98]; P = 0.0182; median OS, 5.0 vs 4.1 months). Additionally, more patients receiving glasdegib + LDAC achieved durable recovery of absolute neutrophil count (≥ 1000/μl, 45.6% vs 35.5%), hemoglobin (≥ 9 g/dl, 54.4% vs 38.7%), and platelets (≥ 100,000/μl, 29.8% vs 9.7%). Transfusion independence was achieved by 15.0% and 2.9% of patients receiving glasdegib + LDAC and LDAC alone, respectively. Conclusions: Collectively, these data suggest that there are clinical benefits with glasdegib in the absence of CR. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01546038 (March 7, 2012
    corecore