International journal of clinical practice · 2004
Resolving diagnostic uncertainty in initially poorly localizable fevers: a prospective study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Biswas Rakesh, Dhakal Binod, Das R N, Shetty K J
Аннотация
AIMS: Prospective, observational data collection of fever patients with regard to aetiology and means of detecting it particularly noting the factors, which quickly helped resolve diagnostic uncertainty.
METHODS: Prospective follow-up of patients with clinically non-localizable fever admitted to Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Nepal, documenting their temperature response, clinical and lab findings and diagnoses with their response to treatment.
RESULTS: Enteric fever 56.8% (25), urinary tract infection 15.9% (7), malaria 9% (4), TB (pulmonary) 4% (2), abscess 4% (2) and hydatid cyst 4% (2). Remaining 4% were due to some other systemic causes. Culture positive: Salmonella typhi positive 32% (8), S. paratyphi positive 20% (5) and culture negative 48%. Response to treatment: enteric fever--(i) first-line drugs (ampicillin/cotrimoxazole) 16% (4), (ii) second-line drugs (ciprofloxacin) 20% (5) and (iii) ceftriaxone 44% (11).
CONCLUSIONS: Fever charting as a means to localize Salmonella vs other fevers is still an invaluable clinical tool in adult patients in Nepal. If used judiciously, it can be used as an effective means to diagnose and treat patients of initially non-localizable fevers. Patience must be exercised in starting antibiotics, not until the fever pattern of 2 days suggests enteric, and also while waiting for a response to first-line drugs for Salmonella before one switches over to costlier second-line drugs, with the possible exception of quinolones which may even be used first line owing to their reduced costs (at the danger of wielding a double-edged sword).
METHODS: Prospective follow-up of patients with clinically non-localizable fever admitted to Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Nepal, documenting their temperature response, clinical and lab findings and diagnoses with their response to treatment.
RESULTS: Enteric fever 56.8% (25), urinary tract infection 15.9% (7), malaria 9% (4), TB (pulmonary) 4% (2), abscess 4% (2) and hydatid cyst 4% (2). Remaining 4% were due to some other systemic causes. Culture positive: Salmonella typhi positive 32% (8), S. paratyphi positive 20% (5) and culture negative 48%. Response to treatment: enteric fever--(i) first-line drugs (ampicillin/cotrimoxazole) 16% (4), (ii) second-line drugs (ciprofloxacin) 20% (5) and (iii) ceftriaxone 44% (11).
CONCLUSIONS: Fever charting as a means to localize Salmonella vs other fevers is still an invaluable clinical tool in adult patients in Nepal. If used judiciously, it can be used as an effective means to diagnose and treat patients of initially non-localizable fevers. Patience must be exercised in starting antibiotics, not until the fever pattern of 2 days suggests enteric, and also while waiting for a response to first-line drugs for Salmonella before one switches over to costlier second-line drugs, with the possible exception of quinolones which may even be used first line owing to their reduced costs (at the danger of wielding a double-edged sword).