METHODS: 5 radiologists read 1 identical test set of 200 mammographic (180 normal cases and 20 abnormal cases) 3 times and were requested to adhere to 3 different recall rate conditions: free recall, 15% and 10%. The radiologists were asked to mark the locations of suspicious lesions and provide a confidence rating for each decision. An independent expert radiologist identified the various types of cancers in the test set, including the presence of calcifications and the lesion location, including specific mammographic density.
RESULTS: Radiologists demonstrated lower sensitivity and receiver operating characteristic area under the curve for non-specific density/asymmetric density (H = 6.27, p = 0.04 and H = 7.35, p = 0.03, respectively) and mixed features (H = 9.97, p = 0.01 and H = 6.50, p = 0.04, respectively) when reading at 15% and 10% recall rates. No significant change was observed on cancer characterized with stellate masses (H = 3.43, p = 0.18 and H = 1.23, p = 0.54, respectively) and architectural distortion (H = 0.00, p = 1.00 and H = 2.00, p = 0.37, respectively). Across all recall conditions, stellate masses were likely to be recalled (90.0%), whereas non-specific densities were likely to be missed (45.6%).
CONCLUSION: Cancers with a stellate mass were more easily detected and were more likely to continue to be recalled, even at lower recall rates. Cancers with non-specific density and mixed features were most likely to be missed at reduced recall rates. Advances in knowledge: Internationally, recall rates vary within screening mammography programs considerably, with a range between 1% and 15%, and very little is known about the type of breast cancer appearances found when radiologists interpret screening mammograms at these various recall rates. Therefore, understanding the lesion types and the mammographic appearances of breast cancers that are affected by readers' recall decisions should be investigated.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted of consecutive diagnostic EGDs performed at a university-affiliated, teaching hospital, which has an open-access endoscopy system for doctors who work in the hospital. The main indication(s) for EGD was recorded and assessed as appropriate or inappropriate by using American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy criteria. EGD findings were recorded and classified as positive or negative. Referrals were categorized as being from endoscopists, primary care physicians, and others.
RESULTS: Of 1076 referrals for EGD, 88.3% were deemed appropriate. The group with the highest rate of appropriate referral was endoscopists (90.2%), followed by primary care physicians (89.6%) and "others" (81.9%). The rate of appropriate referrals was significantly higher for endoscopists and primary care physicians compared with "others" (respectively, p=0.001 and p=0.022). The most common appropriate indication was "upper abdominal distress that persists despite an appropriate trial of therapy" (35.4%). The most common inappropriate indication was "dyspepsia in patients aged 45 years or below without adequate empirical medical treatment" (48.4%); 42.2% with an appropriate indication had positive findings compared with only 25.6% of those with inappropriate indications (p=0.006). On multivariate analysis, the following were identified as independent predictive factors for positive findings at EGD: male gender (p=0.005), age over 45 years (p=0.011), smoking (p=0.005), none/primary education (p<0.001), and secondary education (p=0.026).
CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients referred for open-access EGD with an appropriate indication(s) was high for all doctor groups in a large university-affiliated medical center in Asia. EGDs performed for appropriate indications had a higher yield of positive findings. Independent predictive factors of positive findings were male gender, age over 45 years, lower education level, and referral by an endoscopist.
METHODS: Cross sectional study. Adult patients diagnosed with HIV infection and had at least one medical encounter in a primary healthcare setting during three years prior to diagnosis were included. We collected data on sociodemographic characteristics, patient characteristics at diagnosis, HIV-related conditions and whether they were subjected to risk assessment and offered HIV testing during the three years prior to HIV diagnosis.
RESULTS: 65 newly HIV-diagnosed patients (male: 92.3%; Malays: 52.4%; single: 66.7%; heterosexual: 41%; homosexual 24.6%; CD4 <350 at diagnosis: 63%). 93.8% were unaware of their HIV status at diagnosis. Up to 56.9% had presented with HIV-related conditions at a primary healthcare facility during the three years prior to diagnosis. Slightly more than half were had risk assessment done and only 33.8% were offered HIV-testing.
CONCLUSIONS: Missed opportunities for HIV-testing was unacceptably high with insufficient risk assessment and offering of HIV-testing. Risk assessment must be promoted and primary care physicians must be trained to recognize HIV-related conditions that will prompt them to offer HIVtesting.
METHODS: Recurrent abdominal pain was defined as at least three episodes of abdominal pain, severe enough to affect a child's activities over a period longer than 3 months. A health-care consulter was defined as a child who had been brought to see a doctor regarding recurrent abdominal pain at least once in the past year. Children aged between 9 and 15 years were randomly chosen from schools in the city of Petaling Jaya, given questionnaires to fill in and interviewed to determine whether they fulfilled the above criteria for having symptoms of recurrent abdominal pain and for being a consulter. Bivariate analysis and multiple logistic regression analysis were performed on the data obtained.
RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three (9.61%) children fulfilled the criteria for recurrent abdominal pain out of a total of 1488 schoolchildren interviewed. There were 65 (45.5%) consulters and 78 (54.5%) non-consulters. Among the consulters, the male to female ratio was 1:1.4, while among the non-consulters, the ratio was 1:1.1. On bivariate analysis, the Chinese had a significantly lower likelihood to consult a doctor (P = 0.02), while the other two races did not show any increase in consultation (Malays, P = 0.08; Indians, P = 0.21). Among those with severe pain, there was a significantly higher prevalence of consulters (P < 0.01). Furthermore, those whose sleep was interrupted by abdominal pain were more likely to consult (P < 0.01). Children who had consulted a doctor were more likely to be missing school because of abdominal pain (P < 0.01). Following multiple logistic regression analysis, ethnicity was no longer a significant predictor.
CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 45.5% of schoolchildren with recurrent abdominal pain in an urban setting were brought to see a doctor. Predictors of recent health-care consultation were school absence, pain severity and interruption of sleep caused by abdominal pain.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in an urban, public primary care clinic. Convenience sampling was used to recruit participants, and audio-recorded consultations were scored for SDM levels by two independent raters using the OPTION tool. Univariate and multivariate analysis was conducted to determine factors significantly associated with SDM levels.
RESULTS: 199 patients and 31 doctors participated. Mean consultation time was 14.3 min (+ SD 5.75). Patients' age ranged from 18 to 87 years (median age of 57.5 years). 52.8 % of patients were female, with three main ethnicities (Malay, Chinese, Indian). The mean OPTION score was found to be 7.8 (+ SD 3.31) out of 48. After a multivariate analysis, only patient ethnicity (β= -0.142, p
METHODS: We described the consultations by sex, age, week, and diagnosis according to the Surveillance in Post-Extreme Emergencies and Disasters system. We compared the number and proportion of upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) with a control season in 2014.
RESULTS: We included 6785 consultations, 55.9% from women. The majority of consultations were communicable diseases (88.2%) followed by noncommunicable (7.1%) and injuries (5.6%). Males suffered more often from injuries than women (66.0% vs 34.0%). Consultations due to injuries decreased from 10.0% in the first to 2.9% in the last week. The most frequent diagnosis over the study period was acute respiratory infections (ARIs) (73.1%), of which 83.0% were children. The number of daily URTIs was higher than in a similar 2014 period.
CONCLUSIONS: ARI was the most prevalent diagnosis. We recommend ARI treatments being fully accessible after such a disaster. During the first week, injury prevention should focus on adult men. Studies after natural disasters should include control periods to better understand disease distribution, ultimately improving the prioritization in disasters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was designed to assess surgeons' and patients' perceptions toward breast reconstruction. Questionnaires were distributed to general and breast surgeons in East Coast Malaysian hospitals and Hospital Kuala Lumpur and to postmastectomy patients with and without breast reconstruction at the Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia and Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab II. The response rates were 82.5% for the surgeons (n = 33), 95.4% for the patients with reconstruction (n = 63), and 95.5% for the patients without reconstruction (n = 278).
RESULTS: The median surgeon age and experience was 42 and 6 years, respectively. Each surgeon saw an average of 20 new breast cancer cases annually. Most surgeons (86.7%) discussed reconstruction options with their patients but had only referred an average of 4 patients for reconstruction during a 3-year period. Surgeons' concerns regarding the qualitative outcome increased the likelihood of a breast reconstruction discussion (β = 4.833; P = .044). The women who underwent breast reconstruction were younger (mean age, 42 vs. 50 years), were more often working (69.4% vs. 42.2%), and more often had previous awareness of the option (90.3% vs. 44.3%). The most common reasons for undergoing breast reconstruction were "to feel more balanced" (92.1%) and "surgeon's strong recommendation" (92.1%). Previous knowledge of breast reconstruction increased the likelihood of reconstruction (odds ratio, 5.805; P = .026). Although 70% of surgeons thought that patients would not be interested in reconstruction, only 37.9% of patients with previous awareness reported having no interest.
CONCLUSION: The low reconstruction rate (20.6%) can be attributed to the low referral rate. Patients' likelihood to undergo reconstruction with their surgeon's recommendation and with previous awareness were reflective of the surgeons' strong influence on their patients. Thus, clarification of surgeons' hypothetical criticisms could conceivably increase the reconstructive surgery rate.