Periodontitis and diabetes: a two-way relationship

Periodontitis is a common chronic inflammatory disease characterised by destruction of the supporting structures of the teeth (the periodontal ligament and alveolar bone). It is highly prevalent (severe periodontitis affects 10–15% of adults) and has multiple negative impacts on quality of life. Epidemiological data confirm that diabetes is a major risk factor for periodontitis; susceptibility to periodontitis is increased by approximately threefold in people with diabetes. There is a clear relationship between degree of hyperglycaemia and severity of periodontitis. The mechanisms that underpin the links between these two conditions are not completely understood, but involve aspects of immune functioning, neutrophil activity, and cytokine biology. There is emerging evidence to support the existence of a two-way relationship between diabetes and periodontitis, with diabetes increasing the risk for periodontitis, and periodontal inflammation negatively affecting glycaemic control. Incidences of macroalbuminuria and end-stage renal disease are increased twofold and threefold, respectively, in diabetic individuals who also have severe periodontitis compared to diabetic individuals without severe periodontitis. Furthermore, the risk of cardiorenal mortality (ischaemic heart disease and diabetic nephropathy combined) is three times higher in diabetic people with severe periodontitis than in diabetic people without severe periodontitis. Treatment of periodontitis is associated with HbA1c reductions of approximately 0.4%. Oral and periodontal health should be promoted as integral components of diabetes management

Challenges to concordance: theories that explain variations in patient responses

Failing to establish a collaborative relationship between patient and health professional can be a significant obstacle to recovery. Julie Green and Rebecca Jester delve into the psychology behind patient responses and present methods to empower patients.This article was first published in the British Journal of Community Nursing, volume 24, issue 10.Published versio

Does clinical examination aid in the diagnosis of urinary tract infections in women? A systematic review and meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinicians should be aware of the diagnostic values of various symptoms, signs and antecedents. This information is particularly important in primary care settings, where sophisticated diagnostic approaches are not always feasible. The aim of the study is to determine the probability that various symptoms, signs, antecedents and tests predict urinary tract infection (UTI) in women.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a systematic search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify articles published in all languages through until December 2008. We particularly focused on studies that examined the diagnostic accuracy of at least one symptom, sign or patient antecedent related to the urinary tract. We included studies where urine culture, a gold standard, was preformed by primary care providers on female subjects aged at least 14 years. A meta-analysis of the likelihood ratio was performed to assess variables related to the urinary tract symptoms.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 1, 212 articles identified, 11 met the selection criteria. Dysuria, urgency, nocturia, sexual activity and urgency with dysuria were weak predictors of urinary tract infection, whereas increases in vaginal discharge and suprapubic pain were weak predictors of the absence of infection. Nitrites or leukocytes in the dipstick test are the only findings that clearly favored a diagnosis of UTI.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Clinical findings do not aid in the diagnosis of UTI among women who present with urinary symptoms. Vaginal discharge is a weak indicator of the absence of infection. The urine dipstick test was the most reliable tool for detecting UTI.</p

Understanding "revolving door" patients in general practice: a qualitative study

&lt;b&gt;Background&lt;/b&gt; "Revolving door" patients in general practice are repeatedly removed from general practitioners' (GP) lists. This paper reports a qualitative portion of the first mixed methods study of these marginalised patients.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Methods&lt;/b&gt; We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with six practitioner services staff and six GPs in Scotland, utilizing Charmazian grounded theory to characterise "revolving door" patients and their impact from professionals' perspectives.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Results&lt;/b&gt; "Revolving door" patients were reported as having three necessary characteristics; they had unreasonable expectations, exhibited inappropriate behaviours and had unmet health needs. A range of boundary breaches were reported too when "revolving door" patients interacted with NHS staff.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Conclusions&lt;/b&gt; We utilise the "sensitising concepts" of legitimacy by drawing on literature about "good and bad" patients and "dirty work designations". We relate these to the core work of general practice and explore the role that medical and moral schemas have in how health service professionals understand and work with "revolving door" patients. We suggest this may have wider relevance for the problem doctor patient relationship literature