ABSTRACT
Neonatal seizures are often complex and difcult to recognize, but can be identied through electroencephalogram (EEG) monitoring. The Brighton Collaboration has developed a scheme with ve levels of diagnostic certainty to guide treatment decisions when EEG is not available. Different seizure types are usually associated with specic underlying causes, which may require specic diagnostic and treatment approaches. Neonatal seizures require prompt management, including the stabilization of cardiovascular and respiratory function and the identication of the underlying cause. EEG monitoring is considered essential for the detection of seizures and should be performed until the neonate has been seizure-free for 12 to 24 hours. Treatment involves the use of antiseizure medication and may include pyridoxine challenge or other treatment options such as the ketogenic diet, intravenous immunoglobulin, or corticosteroids if seizures are refractory to conventional antiseizure medication. It is important to differentiate between seizures and nonepileptic motor phenomena, which can occur without obvious cause or as symptoms of drug withdrawal, electrolyte abnormalities, hypoglycemia, or infection. Neuroimaging is also considered essential for the detection of possible structural abnormalities in neonates with seizures.
ABSTRACT
El diagnóstico es un fin y un medio indispensable para establecer una terapéutica eficaz. Hay quienes lo señalan como la parte más importante del trabajo médico, pero existen dificultades en la forma de enseñarlo. Objetivo: establecer la relación entre los errores en la discusión diagnóstica y la certeza diagnóstica. Métodos: se realizó un estudio descriptivo basado en el análisis de 75 discusiones diagnósticas escritas y expuestas por 36 médicos de la especialidad de Medicina Interna del Hospital Militar Central "Dr. Carlos J. Finlay". Cada discusión fue analizada a través de una guía de observación, de forma individual por tres profesores, los cuales discutían lo observado para definir los errores cometidos durante discusión diagnóstica. Resultados: los errores más frecuentes fueron: no abordar la afectación ni el padecer, no pronostica, error diagnóstico etiológico y entidad nosológica errada; los dos últimos con diferencias estadísticamente significativas. Conclusiones: existen limitaciones conceptuales de lo que incluye el diagnóstico como resultados. La mayor parte de los errores no se asocia de forma significativa con la certeza diagnóstica...
Diagnosis is both an end and an indispensable means to establish an effective treatment. To some it is the most important part of medical practice. However, there are difficulties related to the way it should be taught. Objective: determine the relationship between errors in diagnostic discussion and diagnostic certainty. Methods: a descriptive study was conducted based on the analysis of 75 diagnostic discussions written and presented by 36 internal medicine specialists from Dr. Carlos J. Finlay Central Military Hospital. All discussions were analyzed by three professors based on an observation guide. The three professors would then discuss their observations with a view to defining the errors made during diagnostic discussion. Results: the most common errors were the following: not dealing with the disorder or condition, not making a prognosis, wrong etiological diagnosis and wrong nosological entity, the latter two with statistically significant differences. Conclusions: there exist conceptual limitations as to what to include in the diagnosis as results. Most errors are not significantly associated with diagnostic certainty.
ABSTRACT
Introducción: con el desarrollo impetuoso de la tecnología, se ha producido una situación en que no pocos médicos y pacientes, han perdido la confianza en el interrogatorio, el examen físico y el razonamiento médico, y sobrevaloran el uso de la tecnología en el diagnóstico. No es raro, tampoco, encontrarse con el caso de que a una pequeña anormalidad en un examen complementario, se le ofrezca más valor que al cuadro clínico del paciente. Objetivo: determinar la relación entre los errores en estudios complementarios y la certeza diagnóstica. Métodos: se realizó un estudio descriptivo, basado en la observación de la indicación de estudios complementarios por 36 médicos de la especialidad de Medicina Interna. Resultados: los tres errores más frecuentemente observados en los exámenes complementarios fueron: utilización de rutinas, estudios innecesarios y no informar al enfermo de los resultados. Las diferencias observadas entre los grupos según certeza diagnóstica, no resultaron estadísticamente significativas. Conclusiones: los errores más frecuentes en la utilización de los exámenes complementarios, muestran un mal razonamiento clínico previo a su indicación. Ningún error identificado se asoció de manera significativa a la certeza del diagnóstico. La indicación y evaluación de los estudios complementarios debe hacerse vinculada a la del razonamiento diagnóstico, así se evita la indicación de rutinas y estudios innecesarios
Introduction: with the impetuous development of technology, a situation has arisen in which a considerable number of physicians and patients have lost their confidence in clinical interviews, physical examination and clinical reasoning, and overestimate the use of medical technology for diagnostic purposes. It is not uncommon that a small abnormality found in a complementary test is given more importance than the patient's clinical status. Objective: determine the relation between errors in complementary studies and diagnostic certainty. Methods: a descriptive study was conducted based on the indication of complementary studies by 36 internal medicine specialists. Results: the three most common errors found in complementary examinations were the use of routines, unnecessary studies and not informing results to the patient. The differences found between the groups as to diagnostic certainty were not statistically significant. Conclusions: the most common errors in the use of complementary examinations are evidence of faulty clinical reasoning before their indication. None of the errors identified was significantly associated with diagnostic certainty. Indication and evaluation of complementary studies should be linked to diagnostic reasoning, to prevent the indication of routines and unnecessary studies
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Clinical Diagnosis , Laboratory TestABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is considered the most useful among tumor markers currently used. However, its quantitative results are interpreted only qualitatively for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. The recently introduced information theory enables the information of the quantitative results transformed into Shannon's entropy (S) that represents uncertainties and then "1-S" representing diagnostic certainty. METHODS: The 882 urological patients enrolled were categorized into 2 groups: a patient group comprising 233 patients with prostate cancer and a disease control group comprising 649 patients with benign prostate disease. The level of PSA in all the patients was tested and was found to be > or =2 ng/mL. The variables like PSA level and age were modeled on logistic regression analysis to predict the probability of prostate cancer and the diagnostic certainty. RESULTS: The mean (SD) of PSA levels in the patient group and the disease control group were 44.5 ng/mL (37.62 ng/mL) and 5.7 ng/mL (3.70 ng/mL), respectively. The logistic regression model fitted well when the age variable was dichotomized at the age of 55 yr. The diagnostic certainty was lowest at a PSA level of 18.90 ng/mL in the 55-yr age group. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic certainty (1-S) of whether to diagnose prostate cancer or not at a certain PSA level could be obtained using the information theory. The methodology used in this study may help interpret the results of other quantitative tests.