The differential diagnosis of tiredness: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tiredness is one of the most frequent complaints in primary care. Although often self-limiting and frequently associated with psychosocial stress, patients but also their physicians are often uncertain regarding a serious cause and appropriate diagnostic work-up. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting on differential diagnosis of fatigue in primary care. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and conference abstracts were searched for primary care based studies of patients presenting with tiredness. Twenty-six studies were included. We report on anaemia, malignancy, serious organic disease, depression and the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) as causes of tiredness as presenting complaint. RESULTS: We found considerable heterogeneity of estimates which was reduced by limiting our analysis to high quality studies. Prevalences were as follows-anaemia: 2.8 % (CI (confidence interval) 1.6-4.8 %); malignancy: 0.6 % (CI 0.3-1.3 %); serious somatic disease: 4.3 % (CI 2.7-6.7 %); depression 18.5 % (CI 16.2-21.0 %). Pooling was not appropriate for CFS. In studies with control groups of patients without the symptom of tiredness, prevalence of somatic disease was identical to those complaining of tiredness. Depression, however, was more frequent among those with tiredness. CONCLUSIONS: Serious somatic disease is rare in patients complaining of tiredness. Since prevalence is similar in patients without tiredness, the association may not be causal. Extensive investigations are only warranted in case of specific findings from the history or clinical examination. Instead, attention should focus on depression and psychosocial problems.

Causes of chest pain in primary care--a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To investigate the frequencies of different and relevant underlying etiologies of chest pain in general practice. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE. Two reviewers independently rated the eligibility of publications and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We extracted data to calculate the relative frequencies of different underlying conditions and investigated the variation across studies using forest plots, I(2), tau(2), and prediction intervals. With respect to unexplained heterogeneity, we provided qualitative syntheses instead of pooled estimates. RESULTS: We identified 11 eligible studies comprising about 6500 patients. The overall risk of bias was rated as low in 6 studies comprising about 3900 patients. The relative frequencies of different conditions as the underlying etiologies of chest pain reported by these studies ranged from 24.5 to 49.8% (chest wall syndrome), 13.8 to 16.1% (cardiovascular diseases), 6.6 to 11.2% (stable coronary heart disease), 1.5 to 3.6% (acute coronary syndrome/myocardial infarction), 10.3 to 18.2% (respiratory diseases), 9.5 to 18.2% (psychogenic etiologies), 5.6 to 9.7% (gastrointestinal disorders), and 6.0 to 7.1% (esophageal disorders). CONCLUSION: This information may be of practical value for general practitioners as it provides the pre-test probabilities for a range of underlying diseases and may be suitable to guide the diagnostic process.

Studies of the symptom abdominal pain--a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic reasoning in primary care patients with abdominal pain is a complex challenge for GPs. To ensure evidence-based decision making for this symptom, GPs need setting-specific knowledge about the prevalence, potential risks for diseases and chance of recovery or risk of undesirable courses of disease. AIM: We conducted a systematic review of symptom-evaluating studies on prevalence, aetiology or prognosis of abdominal pain. METHODS: We included all studies evaluating the symptom 'abdominal pain' as a reason for consultation in primary care. We included all types of study designs except for qualitative studies. Studies focussed solely on children or settings other than primary care were also excluded. RESULTS: We identified 14 studies. Mean consultation prevalence is 2.8% for abdominal pain. In about one-third of patients the underlying cause of abdominal pain cannot be specified. The most common aetiologies are gastroenteritis (7.2-18.7%), irritable bowel disease (2.6-13.2%), urological cause (5.3%) and gastritis (5.2%). About 1 in 10 abdominal pain patients suffers from an acute disease like appendicitis (1.9%), diverticulitis (3.0%), biliary/pancreatic (4.0%) or neoplastic (1.0%) diseases needing immediate therapy. CONCLUSION: There is a high prevalence of patients consulting GPs for abdominal pain. The review identified a comparably high rate of acute underlying diseases in need of further investigation or therapy. At the same time, the underlying cause of the complaints often remains unexplained. Further symptom-evaluating studies are necessary, ideally using standardized methodology in order to gain sufficient evidence for developing much-needed guidelines and decision support tools.