Persistent CSF Rhinorrhoea, Pneumocephalus, and Recurrent Meningitis Following Misdiagnosis of Olfactory Neuroblastoma

A 41-year-old female patient was admitted with streptococcal meningitis on a background of 5-month history of CSF rhinorrhoea. Imaging revealed an extensive skull base lesion involving the sphenoid and ethmoid sinuses, the pituitary fossa with suprasellar extension and bony destruction. Histological examination of an endonasal transethmoidal biopsy suggested a diagnosis of olfactory neuroblastoma. A profuse CSF leak occurred and the patient developed coliform meningitis. A second endonasal endoscopic biopsy was undertaken which demonstrated the tumour to be a prolactinoma. Following endonasal repair of the CSF leak and lumbar drainage, she developed profound pneumocephalus. The patient underwent three further unsuccessful CSF leak repairs. Definitive control of the CSF leak was finally achieved through a transcranial approach with prolonged lumbar drainage. This case illustrates some of the potentially devastating complications which can occur as a consequence of complex skull base lesions. A multidisciplinary approach may be required to successfully manage such cases

Research on injury compensation and health outcomes : ignoring the problem of reverse causality led to a biased conclusion

Objective\ud \ud This study highlights the serious consequences of ignoring reverse causality bias in studies on compensation-related factors and health outcomes and demonstrates a technique for resolving this problem of observational data.\ud \ud Study Design and Setting\ud \ud Data from an English longitudinal study on factors, including claims for compensation, associated with recovery from neck pain (whiplash) after rear-end collisions are used to demonstrate the potential for reverse causality bias. Although it is commonly believed that claiming compensation leads to worse recovery, it is also possible that poor recovery may lead to compensation claims—a point that is seldom considered and never addressed empirically. This pedagogical study compares the association between compensation claiming and recovery when reverse causality bias is ignored and when it is addressed, controlling for the same observable factors.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud When reverse causality is ignored, claimants appear to have a worse recovery than nonclaimants; however, when reverse causality bias is addressed, claiming compensation appears to have a beneficial effect on recovery, ceteris paribus.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud To avert biased policy and judicial decisions that might inadvertently disadvantage people with compensable injuries, there is an urgent need for researchers to address reverse causality bias in studies on compensation-related factors and health

Are people who claim compensation "cured by a verdict"? A longitudinal study of health outcomes after whiplash

This study examines whether the lure of injury compensation prompts whiplash claimants to overstate their symptoms. Claim settlement is the intervention of interest, as it represents the point at which there is no further incentive to exaggerate symptoms, and neck pain at 24 months is the outcome of interest. Longitudinal data on neck pain scores and timing of claim settlement were regressed, controlling for the effect of time on recovery, to compare outcomes in claimants who had and had not settled their compensation claims. The results show clearly that removing the financial incentive to over-report symptoms has no effect on self-reported neck pain in a fault-based compensation scheme, and this finding concurs with other studies on this topic. Policy decisions to limit compensation in the belief that claimants systematically misrepresent their health status are not supported empirically Claimants do not appear to be "cured by a verdict"

Are people who seek compensation “cured by a verdict”? A longitudinal study of health outcomes with whiplash

This study examines whether the lure of injury compensation prompts whiplash claimants to overstate their symptoms. Claim settlement is the intervention of interest, as it represents the point at which there is no further incentive to exaggerate symptoms, and neck pain at 24 months is the outcome of interest. Longitudinal data on neck pain scores and timing of claim settlement were regressed, controlling for the effect of time on recovery, to compare outcomes in claimants who had and had not settled their compensation claims. The results show clearly that removing the financial incentive to over-report symptoms has no effect on self-reported neck pain in a fault-based compensation scheme, and this finding concurs with other studies on this topic. Policy decisions to limit compensation in the belief that claimants systematically misrepresent their health status are not supported empirically. Claimants do not appear to be "cured by a verdict"