ABSTRACT
We asked a group of four researchers without experience in the field, to fill in the simplified Scoring Table based on Conversational Analysis principles. Researchers underwent a single-day training based on the linguistic differences in the event description by patients with epileptic seizures (ES) and psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES). Two raters reached 100% agreement with the gold standard and even in the worst case the error was only 25%. This tool could be used for first screening, because it is very easy to administer, both for the interview and for the Scoring Table completion, confirming the usefulness of Conversation Analysis in differential diagnosis between ES and PNES.
Subject(s)
Electroencephalography , Epilepsy , Diagnosis, Differential , Epilepsy/diagnosis , Humans , Linguistics , Seizures/diagnosisSubject(s)
Interview, Psychological/methods , Psychophysiologic Disorders/classification , Psychophysiologic Disorders/diagnosis , Seizures/classification , Seizures/diagnosis , Semantics , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Diagnosis, Differential , Electroencephalography/methods , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Psychophysiologic Disorders/psychology , Seizures/psychology , Young AdultABSTRACT
Follow-up modalities for adult coeliac patients remain controversial. Non-invasive markers to identify coeliac patients on a gluten-free diet (GFD) with persistence of villous atrophy (VA) are still lacking. We aim to develop a score to stratify coeliac patients on a GFD according to their risk of having persistent VA and to tailor follow-up modalities accordingly. The clinical notes of over 700 coeliac patients attending our unit (September 1999-November 2018) were retrospectively examined. A total of 273 patients on a GFD with a histological follow-up performed 12-24 months after diagnosis were selected. We developed a bivariable model based on diet adherence and clinical response evaluated by previously validated methods. A four-level score (0·5, 1·5, 3, 4) was obtained. Patients on a strict GFD and with good clinical conditions (score 4) have a very low risk of persistence of VA (2 (95 % CI 1, 5) %). Conversely, the risk is very high (46 (95 % CI 25, 68) %) in patients with poor adherence to a GFD and unsatisfactory clinical response (score 0·5). A score of 1·5 (poor GFD adherence and persistent well-being) is linked with a high risk (23 (95 % CI 14, 36) %). Risk is intermediate (6 (95 % CI 3, 10) %) in patients scoring 3 (strict GFD and no/partial clinical improvement). Three patients who developed complications belonged to this scenario. Patients at low risk of persistent VA can be followed-up non-invasively, whereas a biopsy should be repeated in those at high/very high risk. Case-by-case evaluation is needed in patients at intermediate risk. Studies on a larger sample size are required to confirm these data.
