Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography compared to unenhanced CT for stone and obstruction in patients with renal failure

BACKGROUND: To determine accuracy of ultrasound (US) kidney, ureter and bladder (KUB) compared to un-enhanced helical CT (UHCT) in patients with renal failure in the diagnosis of stone and obstruction. METHODS: This is a case controlled study conducted in the period from June 2000 to July 2003 at a university hospital. All patients had both US and UHCT scan. Patients with serum creatinine ≥ 1.8 mg/dl were included in the study. Only direct visualization of stone was considered as confirmatory. In both the studies, UHCT and US, presence of stone and obstruction were noted. The relevant biochemicals, radiological and clinical records of all the patients were analyzed. Data was analyzed using commercially available software. RESULTS: During the period of study 864 patients had UHCT for evaluation of the urinary tract in patients presenting with flank pain. Out of these 34 patients had both UHCT and US done within a span of one day and had serum creatinine of ≥1.8 mg/dl. Mean age was 48 ±15.8 years and 59% of patients were males. UHCT identified renal stones in 21 (62%), whereas 17 of these were identified on US, with a sensitivity of 81%. Of the four patients with renal stones missed on US, three were identified on plain x-ray; the mean size of stones missed was 6.3 mm. Of the 22 (65%) patients with ureteric stone on UHCT, US could only identify 10; a further 7 were identified on x-ray KUB, giving a sensitivity of 45% (US alone) and 77% (US with x-ray KUB). CONCLUSIONS: US is sensitive and specific for renal stones, 81% and 100% and for hydronephrosis, 93% and 100%, respectively. Its sensitivity to pick ureteric stone (46%) and to identify hydroureter (50%) is low. Addition of x-ray KUB abdomen increases the sensitivity for ureteric stones to 77%

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for deep vein thrombosis

Background Ultrasound (US) has largely replaced contrast venography as the definitive diagnostic test for deep vein thrombosis (DVT). We aimed to derive a definitive estimate of the diagnostic accuracy of US for clinically suspected DVT and identify study-level factors that might predict accuracy. Methods We undertook a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of diagnostic cohort studies that compared US to contrast venography in patients with suspected DVT. We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness, the ACP Journal Club, and citation lists (1966 to April 2004). Random effects meta-analysis was used to derive pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Random effects meta-regression was used to identify study-level covariates that predicted diagnostic performance. Results We identified 100 cohorts comparing US to venography in patients with suspected DVT. Overall sensitivity for proximal DVT (95% confidence interval) was 94.2% (93.2 to 95.0), for distal DVT was 63.5% (59.8 to 67.0), and specificity was 93.8% (93.1 to 94.4). Duplex US had pooled sensitivity of 96.5% (95.1 to 97.6) for proximal DVT, 71.2% (64.6 to 77.2) for distal DVT and specificity of 94.0% (92.8 to 95.1). Triplex US had pooled sensitivity of 96.4% (94.4 to 97.1%) for proximal DVT, 75.2% (67.7 to 81.6) for distal DVT and specificity of 94.3% (92.5 to 95.8). Compression US alone had pooled sensitivity of 93.8 % (92.0 to 95.3%) for proximal DVT, 56.8% (49.0 to 66.4) for distal DVT and specificity of 97.8% (97.0 to 98.4). Sensitivity was higher in more recently published studies and in cohorts with higher prevalence of DVT and more proximal DVT, and was lower in cohorts that reported interpretation by a radiologist. Specificity was higher in cohorts that excluded patients with previous DVT. No studies were identified that compared repeat US to venography in all patients. Repeat US appears to have a positive yield of 1.3%, with 89% of these being confirmed by venography. Conclusion Combined colour-doppler US techniques have optimal sensitivity, while compression US has optimal specificity for DVT. However, all estimates are subject to substantial unexplained heterogeneity. The role of repeat scanning is very uncertain and based upon limited data

Functional characterization of the trans-membrane domain interactions of the Sec61 protein translocation complex beta-subunit

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In eukaryotic cells co- and post-translational protein translocation is mediated by the trimeric Sec61 complex. Currently, the role of the Sec61 complex β-subunit in protein translocation is poorly understood. We have shown previously that in <it>Saccharomyces cerevisiae </it>the trans-membrane domain alone is sufficient for the function of the β-subunit Sbh1p in co-translational protein translocation. In addition, Sbh1p co-purifies not only with the protein translocation channel subunits Sec61p and Sss1p, but also with the reticulon family protein Rtn1p.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We used random mutagenesis to generate novel Sbh1p mutants in order to functionally map the Sbh1p trans-membrane domain. These mutants were analyzed for their interactions with Sec61p and how they support co-translational protein translocation. The distribution of mutations identifies one side of the Sbh1p trans-membrane domain α-helix that is involved in interactions with Sec61p and that is important for Sbh1p function in protein translocation. At the same time, these mutations do not affect Sbh1p interaction with Rtn1p. Furthermore we show that Sbh1p is found in protein complexes containing not only Rtn1p, but also the two other reticulon-like proteins Rtn2p and Yop1p.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results identify functionally important amino acids in the Sbh1p trans-membrane domain. In addition, our results provide additional support for the involvement of Sec61β in processes unlinked to protein translocation.</p

Development of a brief multidisciplinary education programme for patients with osteoarthritis

Background Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent progressive musculoskeletal disorder, leading to pain and disability. Patient information and education are considered core elements in treatment guidelines for OA; however, there is to our knowledge no evidence-based recommendation on the best approach, content or length on educational programmes in OA. Objective: to develop a brief, patient oriented disease specific multidisciplinary education programme (MEP) to enhance self-management in patients with OA. Method Twelve persons (80% female mean age 59 years) diagnosed with hand, hip or knee OA participated in focus group interviews. In the first focus group, six participants were interviewed about their educational needs, attitudes and expectations for the MEP. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and thereafter condensed. Based on results from focus group interviews, current research evidence, clinical knowledge and patients' experience, a multidisciplinary OA team (dietist, nurse, occupational therapist, pharmacist, physical therapist and rheumatologist) and a patient representative developed a pilot-MEP after having attended a work-shop in health pedagogics. Finally, the pilot-MEP was evaluated by a second focus group consisting of four members from the first focus group and six other experienced patients, before final adjustments were made. Results The focus group interviews revealed four important themes: what is OA, treatment options, barriers and coping strategies in performing daily activities, and how to live with osteoarthritis. Identified gaps between patient expectations and experience with the pilot-programme were discussed and adapted into a final MEP. The final MEP was developed as a 3.5 hour educational programme provided in groups of 6-9 patients. All members from the multidisciplinary team are involved in the education programme, including a facilitator who during the provision of the programme ensures that the individual questions are addressed. As part of an ongoing process, a patient representative regularly attends the MEP and gives feedback concerning content and perceived value. Conclusion A MEP has been developed to enhance self-management in patients with OA attending a multidisciplinary OA outpatient clinic. The effectiveness of the MEP followed by individual consultations with members of the multidisciplinary team is currently evaluated in a randomised controlled trial with respect to patient satisfaction and functioning

Ageing, adipose tissue, fatty acids and inflammation

A common feature of ageing is the alteration in tissue distribution and composition, with a shift in fat away from lower body and subcutaneous depots to visceral and ectopic sites. Redistribution of adipose tissue towards an ectopic site can have dramatic effects on metabolic function. In skeletal muscle, increased ectopic adiposity is linked to insulin resistance through lipid mediators such as ceramide or DAG, inhibiting the insulin receptor signalling pathway. Additionally, the risk of developing cardiovascular disease is increased with elevated visceral adipose distribution. In ageing, adipose tissue becomes dysfunctional, with the pathway of differentiation of preadipocytes to mature adipocytes becoming impaired; this results in dysfunctional adipocytes less able to store fat and subsequent fat redistribution to ectopic sites. Low grade systemic inflammation is commonly observed in ageing, and may drive the adipose tissue dysfunction, as proinflammatory cytokines are capable of inhibiting adipocyte differentiation. Beyond increased ectopic adiposity, the effect of impaired adipose tissue function is an elevation in systemic free fatty acids (FFA), a common feature of many metabolic disorders. Saturated fatty acids can be regarded as the most detrimental of FFA, being capable of inducing insulin resistance and inflammation through lipid mediators such as ceramide, which can increase risk of developing atherosclerosis. Elevated FFA, in particular saturated fatty acids, maybe a driving factor for both the increased insulin resistance, cardiovascular disease risk and inflammation in older adults