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
Y.R. Lawrence, R. Pokroy, D. Berlowitz, D. Aharoni, D. Hain and G.S. Breuer
Background: Osler taught that splenic infarction presents with left upper abdominal quadrant pain, tenderness and swelling accompanied by a peritoneal friction rub. Splenic infarction is classically associated with bacterial endocarditis and sickle cell disease.
Objectives: To describe the contemporary experience of splenic infarction.
Methods: We conducted a chart review of inpatients diagnosed with splenic infarction in a Jerusalem hospital between 1990 and 2003.
Results: We identified 26 cases with a mean age of 52 years. Common causes were hematologic malignancy (six cases) and intracardiac thrombus (five cases). Only three cases were associated with bacterial endocarditis. In 21 cases the splenic infarction brought a previously undiagnosed underlying disease to attention. Only half the subjects complained of localized left-sided abdominal pain, 36% had left-sided abdominal tenderness 31% had no signs or symptoms localized to the splenic area, 36% had fever, 56% had leukocytosis and 71% had elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels. One splenectomy was performed and all patients survived to discharge. A post hoc analysis demonstrated that single infarcts were more likely to be associated with fever (20% vs. 63%, p < 0.05) and leukocytosis (75% vs. 33%, p = 0.06)
Conclusions: The clinical presentation of splenic infarction in the modern era differs greatly from the classical teaching, regarding etiology, signs and symptoms. In patients with unexplained splenic infarction, investigation frequently uncovers a new underlying diagnosis.