Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Poor adherence to the Integrated Management of Childhood Illness (IMCI) protocol reduces the potential impact on under-five morbidity and mortality. Electronic technology could improve adherence; however there are few studies demonstrating the benefits of such technology in a resource-poor settings. This study estimates the impact of electronic technology on adherence to the IMCI protocols as compared to the current paper-based protocols in Tanzania. Methods In four districts in Tanzania, 18 clinics were randomly selected for inclusion. At each site, observers documented critical parts of the clinical assessment of children aged 2 months to 5 years. The first set of observations occurred during examination of children using paper-based IMCI (pIMCI) and the next set of observations occurred during examination using the electronic IMCI (eIMCI). Children were re-examined by an IMCI expert and the diagnoses were compared. A total of 1221 children (671 paper, 550 electronic) were observed. Results For all ten critical IMCI items included in both systems, adherence to the protocol was greater for eIMCI than for pIMCI. The proportion assessed under pIMCI ranged from 61% to 98% compared to 92% to 100% under eIMCI (p < 0.05 for each of the ten assessment items). Conclusions Use of electronic systems improved the completeness of assessment of children with acute illness in Tanzania. With the before-after nature of the design, potential for temporal confounding is the primary limitation. However, the data collection for both phases occurred over a short period (one month) and so temporal confounding was expected to be minimal. The results suggest that the use of electronic IMCI protocols can improve the completeness and consistency of clinical assessments and future studies will examine the long-term health and health systems impact of eIMCI.

ObjectivesClassification criteria are biased towards classifying long-standing disease. We compared the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR)-2019, Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC)-2012 and ACR-1997 criteria in an early (median 48 months) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) cohort.MethodsPatients diagnosed with SLE (n=690) or control diseases (n=401). Sensitivity, specificity of the criteria and time-to-classification were calculated. Modified classification algorithms were derived from a random 80% and validated in the remaining 20% of the dataset running multiple iterations.ResultsAt last assessment, sensitivities of ACR-1997, SLICC-2012 and EULAR/ACR-2019 criteria were 85.7%, 91.3% and 88.6%, with specificities 93.0%, 93.8% and 97.3%, respectively. Both SLICC and EULAR/ACR enabled earlier classification. Only 76.7% of patients with SLE met all three criteria suggesting non-overlapping groups. Notably, unclassified patients had high prevalence of British Isles Lupus Assessment Group moderate/severe manifestations (43.3%–60%) and SLICC/ACR organ damage (30%–50%). At diagnosis, criteria missed 25.6%–30.5% of patients. Modification of EULAR/ACR and SLICC algorithms to include hypocomplementaemia and/or positive anti-phospholipid antibodies as alternative entry criterion, and/or allow classification with fewer clinical criteria from multiple organs, increased their sensitivity at diagnosis (median 82.0% and 86.2%) and overall (93.7% and 97.1%) with modest decreases in specificity. Importantly, patients who were still missed by the modified criteria had lower incidence of major organ involvement, use of immunosuppressive/biological therapies and organ damage.ConclusionsThe SLICC and EULAR/ACR are more sensitive than the ACR and the EULAR/ACR criteria have superior specificity in early SLE, although patients with significant disease can be missed. Combination and/or modification of the classification algorithms may enhance their sensitivity, allowing earlier classification and treatment of more patients with high disease burden.

Introduction Measurement of breath hydrogen (H2) and methane (CH4) excretion after ingestion of test‐carbohydrates is used for different diagnostic purposes. There is a lack of standardization among centers performing these tests and this, together with recent technical developments and evidence from clinical studies, highlight the need for a European guideline. Methods This consensus‐based clinical practice guideline defines the clinical indications, performance, and interpretation of H2‐CH4‐breath tests in adult and pediatric patients. A balance between scientific evidence and clinical experience was achieved by a Delphi consensus that involved 44 experts from 18 European countries. Eighty eight statements and recommendations were drafted based on a review of the literature. Consensus (≥80% agreement) was reached for 82. Quality of evidence was evaluated using validated criteria. Results The guideline incorporates new insights into the role of symptom assessment to diagnose carbohydrate (e.g., lactose) intolerances and recommends that breath tests for carbohydrate malabsorption require additional validated concurrent symptom evaluation to establish carbohydrate intolerance. Regarding the use of breath tests for the evaluation of oro‐cecal transit time and suspected small bowel bacterial overgrowth, this guideline highlights confounding factors associated with the interpretation of H2‐CH4‐breath tests in these indications and recommends approaches to mitigate these issues. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline should facilitate pan‐European harmonization of diagnostic approaches to symptoms and disorders, which are very common in specialist and primary care gastroenterology practice, both in adult and pediatric patients. In addition, it identifies areas of future research needs to clarify diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

Pressure on the US health care system has been increasing due to a combination of aging populations, rising health care expenditures, and most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses to this pressure are hindered in part by reliance on a limited supply of highly trained health care professionals, creating a need for scalable technological solutions. Digital symptom checkers are artificial intelligence-supported software tools that use a conversational \"chatbot\" format to support rapid diagnosis and consistent triage. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought new attention to these tools due to the need to avoid face-to-face contact and preserve urgent care capacity. However, evidence-based deployment of these chatbots requires an understanding of user demographics and associated triage recommendations generated by a large general population. In this study, we evaluate the user demographics and levels of triage acuity provided by a symptom checker chatbot deployed in partnership with a large integrated health system in the United States. This population-based descriptive study included all web-based symptom assessments completed on the website and patient portal of the Sutter Health system (24 hospitals in Northern California) from April 24, 2019, to February 1, 2020. User demographics were compared to relevant US Census population data. A total of 26,646 symptom assessments were completed during the study period. Most assessments (17,816/26,646, 66.9%) were completed by female users. The mean user age was 34.3 years (SD 14.4 years), compared to a median age of 37.3 years of the general population. The most common initial symptom was abdominal pain (2060/26,646, 7.7%). A substantial number of assessments (12,357/26,646, 46.4%) were completed outside of typical physician office hours. Most users were advised to seek medical care on the same day (7299/26,646, 27.4%) or within 2-3 days (6301/26,646, 23.6%). Over a quarter of the assessments indicated a high degree of urgency (7723/26,646, 29.0%). Users of the symptom checker chatbot were broadly representative of our patient population, although they skewed toward younger and female users. The triage recommendations were comparable to those of nurse-staffed telephone triage lines. Although the emergence of COVID-19 has increased the interest in remote medical assessment tools, it is important to take an evidence-based approach to their deployment.

Study Objectives: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a heterogeneous condition covering many clinical phenotypes in terms of the diversity of symptoms. Patient-based OSA screening questionnaires used in routine practice contain significantly varying contents that can impact the reliability and validity of the screening. We investigated to what extent common patient-based OSA screening questionnaires differ or overlap in their item content by conducting a rigorous, methodical, and quantified content overlap analysis. Methods: We conducted an item content analysis of 11 OSA screening questionnaires validated in adult populations and characterized their overlap using a 4-step approach: (1) selection of OSA screening questionnaires, (2) item extraction and selection, (3) extraction of symptoms from items, and (4) assessment of content overlap with the Jaccard index (from 0, no overlap, to 1, full overlap). Results: We extracted 72 items that provided 25 distinct symptoms from 11 selected OSA questionnaires. The overlap between them was weak (mean Jaccard index: 0.224; ranging from 0.138 to 0.329). All questionnaires contained symptoms of the “OSA symptom” dimension (eg, snoring or witnessed apneas). The STOP-BANG (0.329) and the Berlin (0.280) questionnaires exhibited the highest overlap content. Ten symptoms (40%) were investigated in only 1 questionnaire. Conclusions: The heterogeneity of content and the low overlap across these questionnaires reflect the challenges of screening OSA. The different OSA questionnaires potentially capture varying aspects of the disorder, with the risk of biased results in studies. Suggestions are made for better OSA screening and refinement of clinical OSA phenotypes. Citation: Gauld C, Baillieul S, Martin VP, et al. Symptom content analysis of OSA questionnaires:time to identify and improve relevance of diversity of OSA symptoms? J Clin Sleep Med . 2024;20(7):1105–1117.

The purpose of this study was to test the reliability and validity of the Turkish Eating Assessment Tool (T-EAT-10) among patients with swallowing disorders. One hundred and five patients completed the T-EAT-10 and Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS). The internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and criterion validity of T-EAT-10 were investigated. The internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) value with 95 % confidence intervals was calculated for test–retest reliability. The criterion validity of the T-EAT-10 was determined by assessing the correlation between T-EAT-10 and FOIS. All the patients in the study completed the T-EAT-10 without assistance. The mean time to complete the instrument was 1.8 ± 0.9 min. The internal consistency of the T-EAT-10 was found to be high with 0.90 Cronbach’s alpha for test and 0.91 Cronbach’s alpha for retest reproducibility. No difference between the test and retest scores of the T-EAT-10 was found ( p  = 0.14). A negative, moderate correlation between T-EAT-10 and FOIS was detected ( r  = −0.365, p  < 0.001). The T-EAT-10 is a reliable and valid symptom-specific outcome tool for dysphagia in adult Turkish patients. It can be used in clinical practice and research.

Background The clinical assessments of patients with gastrointestinal symptoms can be time-consuming, and the symptoms captured during the consultation may be influenced by a variety of patient and non-patient factors. To facilitate standardized symptom assessment in the routine clinical setting, we developed the Structured Assessment of Gastrointestinal Symptom (SAGIS) instrument to precisely characterize symptoms in a routine clinical setting. Aims We aimed to validate SAGIS including its reliability, construct and discriminant validity, and utility in the clinical setting. Methods Development of the SAGIS consisted of initial interviews with patients referred for the diagnostic work-up of digestive symptoms and relevant complaints identified. The final instrument consisted of 22 items as well as questions on extra intestinal symptoms and was given to 1120 consecutive patients attending a gastroenterology clinic randomly split into derivation ( n  = 596) and validation datasets ( n  = 551). Discriminant validity along with test–retest reliability was assessed. The time taken to perform a clinical assessment with and without the SAGIS was recorded along with doctor satisfaction with this tool. Results Exploratory factor analysis conducted on the derivation sample suggested five symptom constructs labeled as abdominal pain/discomfort (seven items), gastroesophageal reflux disease/regurgitation symptoms (four items), nausea/vomiting (three items), diarrhea/incontinence (five items), and difficult defecation and constipation (2 items). Confirmatory factor analysis conducted on the validation sample supported the initially developed five-factor measurement model ( χ 193 2 = 892.2 , p  < 0.0001, χ 2 / df  = 4.6, CFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.88, RMSEA = 0.08). All symptom groups demonstrated differentiation between disease groups. The SAGIS was shown to be reliable over time and resulted in a 38% reduction of the time required for clinical assessment. Conclusions The SAGIS instrument has excellent psychometric properties and supports the clinical assessment of and symptom-based categorization of patients with a wide spectrum of gastrointestinal symptoms.

Ultrasound (US) unquestionably improves many aspects of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) diagnosis and management, but no consensus has been reached regarding the optimal US methodology that should be used, and high levels of standardisation have not yet been attained. Current evidence from two randomised controlled trials does not support the US in directing treatment decisions. A return to the endorsement of clinical assessment and the adoption of T2T strategies aiming at ACR/EULAR remission still represent the standard of care for RA and should be pursued through appropriate educational programmes. Thus, for now, the major application of sonography in arthritis should have a focus on diagnostic and especially differential diagnostic aspects.

Research in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging for several reasons; in particular, the heterogeneity between patients regarding causes, pathophysiology, treatment, and outcome. Advances in basic science have failed to translate into successful clinical treatments, and the evidence underpinning guideline recommendations is weak. Because clinical research has been hampered by non-standardised data collection, restricted multidisciplinary collaboration, and the lack of sensitivity of classification and efficacy analyses, multidisciplinary collaborations are now being fostered. Approaches to deal with heterogeneity have been developed by the IMPACT study group. These approaches can increase statistical power in clinical trials by up to 50% and are also relevant to other heterogeneous neurological diseases, such as stroke and subarachnoid haemorrhage. Rather than trying to limit heterogeneity, we might also be able to exploit it by analysing differences in treatment and outcome between countries and centres in comparative effectiveness research. This approach has great potential to advance care in patients with TBI.