European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 1996
Predicting endoscopic diagnosis in the dyspeptic patient: the value of clinical judgement.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Bytzer P, Hansen J M, Havelund T, Malchow-Møller A, Schaffalitzky de Muckadell O B
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of chance-corrected clinical diagnosis in two groups of dyspeptic patients, using endoscopy as the diagnostic standard.
DESIGN: Structured interview before endoscopy and clinical predictions of endoscopic diagnosis as either malignancy, peptic ulcer, oesophagitis or non-ulcer dyspepsia. The quality of the predictions was corrected for chance using iota-correction. Patients gave a provisional prediction of their own endoscopic diagnosis.
SETTING: Two endoscopy units in Odense and Svendborg, Denmark.
PATIENTS: Two groups of dyspeptic outpatients: (1) 1026 patients referred for open-access endoscopy and (2) 207 empirically managed patients randomly assigned to prompt endoscopy as part of a clinical trial.
RESULTS: The overall diagnostic validity for all diagnoses was equal in the two groups of patients (57 and 59%) and was mainly accounted for by positive predictive values for non-ulcer dyspepsia of 75%. Elimination of random accuracy for non-ulcer dyspepsia showed a validity of only 23 and 21%. Patients with a major pathologic lesion (cancer, ulcer, complicated oesophagitis) were misclassified clinically as non-ulcer dyspepsia in 36 and 38% of cases. The sensitivity of a clinical prediction of ulcer was only 52 and 36%, despite positive predictive values of 34%, and most valid when corrected for chance in the group of patients referred for open-access endoscopy. The patients' provisional diagnoses had no predictive value.
CONCLUSION: Clinical diagnosis in dyspepsia was unreliable as it misclassified one-third of patients with a major pathological lesion. Fifty percent of patients with ulcer were misclassified and that clinical diagnosis could only be confirmed in one-third of the cases. The chance-corrected validity of non-ulcer dyspepsia was only slightly better than chance. There was no predictive value of the patients' predictions of their own diagnosis.
DESIGN: Structured interview before endoscopy and clinical predictions of endoscopic diagnosis as either malignancy, peptic ulcer, oesophagitis or non-ulcer dyspepsia. The quality of the predictions was corrected for chance using iota-correction. Patients gave a provisional prediction of their own endoscopic diagnosis.
SETTING: Two endoscopy units in Odense and Svendborg, Denmark.
PATIENTS: Two groups of dyspeptic outpatients: (1) 1026 patients referred for open-access endoscopy and (2) 207 empirically managed patients randomly assigned to prompt endoscopy as part of a clinical trial.
RESULTS: The overall diagnostic validity for all diagnoses was equal in the two groups of patients (57 and 59%) and was mainly accounted for by positive predictive values for non-ulcer dyspepsia of 75%. Elimination of random accuracy for non-ulcer dyspepsia showed a validity of only 23 and 21%. Patients with a major pathologic lesion (cancer, ulcer, complicated oesophagitis) were misclassified clinically as non-ulcer dyspepsia in 36 and 38% of cases. The sensitivity of a clinical prediction of ulcer was only 52 and 36%, despite positive predictive values of 34%, and most valid when corrected for chance in the group of patients referred for open-access endoscopy. The patients' provisional diagnoses had no predictive value.
CONCLUSION: Clinical diagnosis in dyspepsia was unreliable as it misclassified one-third of patients with a major pathological lesion. Fifty percent of patients with ulcer were misclassified and that clinical diagnosis could only be confirmed in one-third of the cases. The chance-corrected validity of non-ulcer dyspepsia was only slightly better than chance. There was no predictive value of the patients' predictions of their own diagnosis.