Improvement in Patient Performance of Skin Self-examinations After Intervention With Interactive Education and Telecommunication Reminders: A Randomized Controlled Study.

OBJECTIVE To determine if interactive computerized patient education, skin self-examination (SSE) tutorials, and telecommunication reminders could be combined to increase patient performance of SSEs, increase confidence in ability to identify melanoma, and influence individual melanoma risk perception. DESIGN A total of 132 adult participants from our dermatology clinics were enrolled in an interventional study and randomized to a control group or an intervention group. Survey data were collected from all participants on the day of enrollment and 3 months after enrollment. SETTING University Hospitals Case Medical Center outpatient dermatology clinics. PARTICIPANTS English speakers older than 18 years. INTERVENTIONS The intervention group (1) participated in a computer-assisted learning tutorial, (2) took part in a hands-on SSE tutorial, (3) received monthly telecommunication reminders to perform SSEs for 12 weeks, and (4) received a brochure on melanoma detection. The control group received only the brochure on melanoma detection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Self-report of performance of SSEs. Melanoma risk perception and confidence in ability to identify melanoma were secondary considerations. Logistic regressions, controlling for race, age, sex, education, and family history of melanoma, were used to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. RESULTS At the 3-month follow-up, those in the intervention group were more likely to perform SSEs (odds ratio [OR], 2.36; P ≤ .05). In addition, those who participated in the intervention were more likely to report being confident in their ability to identify melanoma during an SSE (OR, 2.72; P ≤ .05). CONCLUSION Computer-assisted patient education used in conjunction with a hands-on SSE tutorial and telecommunication reminders can increase patient performance of SSEs and confidence in the ability to identify melanoma.

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) associated with azithromycin in acute Epstein-Barr virus infection.

We report the first pediatric case of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms associated with azithromycin use in the setting of acute Epstein-Barr virus infection in an 8-year-old boy. Our patient presented with fever, cutaneous eruption, eosinophilia, and hypotension requiring intensive care unit admission. He was discharged in good condition without any long-term sequelae. This case underscores the importance of timely and accurate diagnosis of acute viral infections and appropriate use of antibiotics as well as recognition of the clinical signs of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms.

Osteopathic manipulative treatment for low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is a distinctive modality commonly used by osteopathic physicians to complement their conventional treatment of musculoskeletal disorders. Previous reviews and meta-analyses of spinal manipulation for low back pain have not specifically addressed OMT and generally have focused on spinal manipulation as an alternative to conventional treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain. METHODS: Computerized bibliographic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, MANTIS, OSTMED, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were supplemented with additional database and manual searches of the literature. Six trials, involving eight OMT vs control treatment comparisons, were included because they were randomized controlled trials of OMT that involved blinded assessment of low back pain in ambulatory settings. Data on trial methodology, OMT and control treatments, and low back pain outcomes were abstracted by two independent reviewers. Effect sizes were computed using Cohen's d statistic and meta-analysis results were weighted by the inverse variance of individual comparisons. In addition to the overall meta-analysis, stratified meta-analyses were performed according to control treatment, country where the trial was conducted, and duration of follow-up. Sensitivity analyses were performed for both the overall and stratified meta-analyses. RESULTS: Overall, OMT significantly reduced low back pain (effect size, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.47 - -0.13; P = .001). Stratified analyses demonstrated significant pain reductions in trials of OMT vs active treatment or placebo control and OMT vs no treatment control. There were significant pain reductions with OMT regardless of whether trials were performed in the United Kingdom or the United States. Significant pain reductions were also observed during short-, intermediate-, and long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: OMT significantly reduces low back pain. The level of pain reduction is greater than expected from placebo effects alone and persists for at least three months. Additional research is warranted to elucidate mechanistically how OMT exerts its effects, to determine if OMT benefits are long lasting, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of OMT as a complementary treatment for low back pain.