Indices Of Use Research Articles

Usefulness index in nonspecific abdominal pain – an aid in the diagnosis?

Objective. In 1990, Lavelle and Kanagaratnam introduced Usefulness Index (UI) test for assessment of usefulness of clinical observations. Although, nonspecific abdominal pain (NSAP) is the most common diagnosis among secondary care patients with acute abdominal pain, the efficiency of UI test is rarely considered in NSAP. Methods.In an extension of the World Organisation of Gastro-Enterology Research Committee (OMGE) acute abdominal pain study, 1333 patients presenting with acute abdominal pain were included in the study. The clinical signs (n = 14) and tests (n = 3) in each patient were recorded in detail, using a predefined structured data collection sheet, and the collected data were compared with the final diagnoses of the patients. Results. The most significant clinical tests and signs of NSAP in univariate analysis were (UI = Usefulness Index and RR = risk ratio): rigidity (UI = 0.36, RR = 32.2), rebound (UI = 0.33, RR = 6.3), guarding (UI = 0.25, RR = 4.9), Murphy's positive (UI = 0.13, 8.9), bowel sounds (UI = 0.12, RR = 3.3), and renal tenderness (UI = 0.12, RR = 2.2). The sensitivity of the doctors' initial decision in detecting NSAP was 0.70 with a specificity of 0.83 and with the UI = 0.37 and RR = 11.4. Conclusion.The patients with negative test results in rigidity, rebound, guarding, Murphy's, and bowel sounds tended to be at risk for NSAP and in these patients the UI test could be an aid for clinician to differentiate NSAP from other causes of acute abdominal pain.

Diagnostic methods in dyspepsia: the usefulness of upper abdominal ultrasound and gastroscopy

Objective-To examine the diagnostic value of gastroscopy and upper abdominal ultrasound, which are frequently used as primary tests in dyspeptic patients in general practice. To test the influence of age for accuracy of both diagnostic methods.Design-Clinical study.Setting-Four health centres in Kuopio Province, Finland. Subjects-Four hundred unselected consecutive dyspeptic patients (91 less than 45 years of age) who consulted their general practitioners.Main outcome measures-Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PV), efficiency and usefulness index (UI) were calculated for upper abdominal ultrasound and for gastroscopy in detecting the causes of dyspepsia in primary care. Final diagnosis was determined after one year follow-up.Results-The sensitivity of upper abdominal ultrasound in detecting the cause of dyspepsia was 0.07, the specificity 0.91, PV+ 036, PV-0.56, and UI-0.001. Ultrasound was not more efficient in older patients. Gastroscopy was the most efficient method with a sensitivity of 0.75, specificity 1.00, PV+ 0.99, PV-0.83 and UI 0.56. The usefulness of gastroscopy was even better among patients over 45 years of age.Conclusions-The usefulness of upper abdominal ultrasound is low regardless of patient's age. Gastroscopy is superior to upper abdominal ultrasound as a first line diagnostic method in diagnosing dyspepsia, especially among patients over 45 years of age.

Acute appendicitis in patients over the age of 65 years; comparison of clinical and computer based decision making

The role of clinical and computer based decision in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the elderly was studied in connection with the Research Committee of the World Organization of Gastroenterology (OMGE) survey of acute abdominal pain. A total of 220 patients over the age of 65 years presenting with acute abdominal pain were included in the study at the Central Hospital of Savonlinna and at the University Hospital of Tampere. Twenty-two preoperative clinical history variables, 14 clinical signs and three tests were evaluated in a single variable and multivariate analysis to find the best combination of predictors of acute appendicitis in the aged. In order to sum up the contributions of independent diagnostic factors, a diagnostic score (DS) was built: DS = 2.81 × (rectal digital tenderness; 1 = yes, 0 = no) + 2.54 × (rigidity; 1 = yes, 0 = no) + 2.06 × (renal tenderness; 1 = no, 0 = yes) + 2.33 × (bowel sounds; 1 = normal, 2 = absent/abnormal) − 8.13. The sensitivity of preoperative clinical decision in detecting acute appendicitis in the aged was 0.79 with a specificity of 0.92, an efficiency of 0.90 and usefulness index (UI) of 0.56. At a cut-off level of −2.78 the DS reached a sensitivity of 0.84 in detecting acute appendicitis with a specificity of 0.87, an efficiency of 0.87 and UI of 0.68. When the patients with a DS value between −2.78 and −0.45 were considered as non-defined ( n = 28, follow-up required before the decision to operate), the sensitivity of the computer-aided diagnosis in detecting acute appendicitis in the elderly was 0.77 with a specificity of 0.97, an efficiency of 0.96 and UI of 0.57. In the elderly patients where a leucocyte count was available ( n = 157), location of pain, rectal digital tenderness and leucocyte count predicted significantly acute appendicitis. At a cut-off level of −2.62 the DS reached a sensitivity of 0.81 in detecting acute appendicitis with a specificity of 0.92, an efficiency of 0.91 and UI of 0.59. When the patients with a DS value between −2.62 and 0.06 were considered as nondefined (n = 12, follow-up required before the decision to operate), the sensitivity of the computer-aided diagnosis (leucocyte count available) in detecting acute appendicitis in the elderly improved to 0.86 with a specificity of 0.94, an efficiency of 0.93 and UI of 0.69. In our study the diagnostic scoring system for the elderly performed well considering the simple nature of its structure. However, our study group is too small for final conclusions and a new prospective study with larger patient group is needed to determine the reliability of this diagnostic score as a clinical tool and also provide additional data for possible revision.

COMPARISON AND EVALUATION OF A DISEASE ACTIVITY INDEX FOR USE IN PATIENTS WITH RHUEMATIOD ARTHRITIS

An algorithm (Stoke index) has been designed to give a global measure of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis. This algorithm has been created as an easy to use flow diagram based on two objective laboratory measures (C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate), one subjective and two semi-objective clinical measures (morning stiffness, synovitis score and Ritchie articular index). Results of six clinical markers and seven laboratory markers of disease activity on a cohort of 371 rheumatoid patients have been used to evaluate the algorithm and compare it with a previously described index of disease activity (Mallya-Mace index). Principal component analysis validates its ability to measure disease activity. Sensitivity is described by the distribution of patients between the two index scores. Change in index score by patients over a 6-month period indicates reversibility. The Stoke index demonstrates greater sensitivity and reversibility than the Mallya-Mace index. These findings indicate that the algorithm described provides a useful index of global disease activity for use in the assessment of rheumatoid arthritis.