• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Sat, 04.05.24

Search results


April 2020
Maria Infantino, Arianna Damiani, Francesca Li Gobbi, Valentina Grossi, Barbara Lari, Donatella Macchia, Patrizia Casprini, Francesca Veneziani, Danilo Villalta, Nicola Bizzaro, Piero Cappelletti, Martina Fabris, Luca Quartuccio, Maurizio Benucci and Mariangela Manfredi
June 2010
A. Itsekson, D. Shepshelovich, A. Kanevsky and D.S. Seidman
Background: Non-invasive screening tests may allow early diagnosis and prompt treatment, thereby potentially reducing morbidity and mortality and reducing costs for the community.  This may be especially important for gynecologic pathologies that are difficult to promptly diagnose, such as endometriosis or ovarian cancer.

Objectives: To evaluate the reliability of measuring skin resistance using the Medex Test for screening and diagnosis of gynecologic pathologies in a blinded single-center study.

Methods: We enrolled 150 patients: 59 with a functional disorder and 91 with an organic disease. Measurements were carried out in all patients and the results were analyzed separately by a second physician who was blinded to the patients’ diagnosis.

Results: A high correlation was found between the clinical diagnosis and the results of the measurement of electrical skin resistance, with a specificity of 76.3% (45/59) for functional disorders and a sensitivity of 85.7% (78/91) for organic disorders, positive predictive value of 84.8% (78/92) and negative predictive value 77.6% (45/58). The kappa value for the results was 0.622, representing a value much better than expected randomly.

Conclusions: The Medex Test has a good specificity and a high sensitivity for the diagnosis of gynecologic disorders. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these preliminary findings.

S.D.H. Malnick, G. Duek, N. Beilinson, V. Neogolani, A. Basevitz, M. Somin, J. Cohen, M. Katz and A. Schattner

Background: In many hospitals a chest X-ray is performed routinely at each patient’s admission. There are scant data regarding its usefulness in contemporary patient populations, which are characterized by patients’ increasing age, severity of illness, and different comorbidities.

Methods: We studied consecutive patients admitted during a 2 month period to a single department of medicine, where hospital policy mandates performing a CXR[1] on admission or soon after. Two senior clinicians who were not involved in the care of these patients assessed the discharge summaries for a clinical indication to perform CXR on admission, as well as its contribution to patient management (major positive, major negative, minor positive, or no contribution). Logistic regression analysis was performed with the SPSS 12 software program.

Results: The study population comprised 675 patients whose mean age was 64.5 ± 17.2 years. Their presenting complaints included chest pain (18%), dyspnea (12%), weakness (10.5%), fever (9%), abdominal pain (8%) and neurologic complaints (7.5%). Physical examination of the chest was normal in 585 (87%) of the cases and abnormal in 87 (13%). Examination of the heart was normal in 518 (77%) and abnormal in 129 (19%). In 19.6% (130 cases) CXR was not performed. Of the 545 CXRs done, 260 (48%) were normal. In only 128 (23.5%) did the admission CXR make a major positive contribution to diagnosis or treatment. In 61 (11.2%) it provided a minor positive contribution and in 153 (28.1%) a major negative contribution. In 184 patients (33.8%) the CXR did not affect either diagnosis or management. It made a major positive contribution to management in patients for whom there was an indication for performing the X-ray (odds ratio 10.3, P < 0.0005) and in those with a relevant finding on physical examination (OR[2] 1.63, P = 0.110). For a major negative contribution of the CXR to management (i.e., ruling out clinically important possibilities), the clinical indication was also very important (OR 72.9, P < 0.005). When patients with either a clinical indication for performing a CXR or an abnormal chest examination were excluded, 329 patients remained (60% of the 545 who had a CXR) in only 12 of them (3.6%) did the routine admission CXR contribute to patient management.

Conclusions: A routine admission CXR has a significant impact on patient management only in those patients in whom there are relevant findings on physical examination or a clear clinical indication for performing the test. There is no need to routinely order CXR on admission to hospital.

 
 

[1] CXR = chest X-ray

[2] OR = odds ratio

March 2010
K. Weiss, A. Fattal-Valevski and S. Reif

Background: Infants who have experienced an apparent life-threatening event typically undergo an extensive evaluation to rule out serious underlying conditions.

Objectives: To evaluate the yield of different tests performed after an apparent life-threatening event and to identify high risk groups in which more extensive diagnostic tests are required.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in a children's hospital over a 4 year period during which the charts of infants who were admitted with an apparent life-threatening event were reviewed. The yield for each diagnostic test was established according to the ratio of positive results contributing to the diagnosis of the apparent life-threatening event.

Results: The study included 69 infants between the ages of 1 week and 1 year. There were abnormal findings in 36% of the cases. Gastroesophageal reflux was the most common diagnosis (60%). In the remaining patients the diagnosis was either seizures (12%) or respiratory tract infections (28%). Tests used for the diagnosis of cardiac, metabolic and non-respiratory infections had no yield. A positive correlation was found between abnormal test results and abnormal physical examination (P = 0.001), an abnormal perinatal history (P = 0.017), and age older than 2 months (P = 0.002).

Conclusions: The yield of most of the tests performed after an apparent life-threatening event is low, especially in infants with a normal perinatal history and physical examination.

Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel