The prevalence of low bone mineral density in Brazilian patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and its relationship with the disease damage index and other associated factors.

The aim of this study was to examine the prevalence of osteoporosis, osteopenia, and bone mineral density (BMD) less than the expected range based on age in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in a tropical region of Brazil and the relationship between reduced BMD and several associated factors, especially the SLE disease damage index (SDI). We scored 159 patients with creatinine clearance of 60 mL/min or more for SDI, which was modified by excluding the osteoporosis item. For postmenopausal women and men older than 50 yr, T-scores identified osteopenia (<-1.0 and >-2.5) and osteoporosis (≤-2.5). For all patients, a Z-score of -2.0 or less identified BMD less than the expected range for age. Other variables that influence BMD were studied. The prevalence of osteoporosis, osteopenia, and BMD less than the expected range for age was 28%, 54%, and 29.6%, respectively. The Z-scores were significantly lower in patients with a modified SDI ≥ 1 (mean ± standard deviation [SD]=-1.45 ± 1.18) compared with patients with a modified SDI=0 (mean ± SD=-0.94 ± 1.01; p=0.01). The lowest Z-score had a significant association with postmenopausal status (p=0.038) and significant correlations with the duration of glucocorticoid (GC) usage (p=0.033, r=-0.17), the cumulative amount of GC (p=0.000, r=-0.28), and parathyroid hormone levels (p=0.003, r=-0.24). A multiple linear regression revealed that the modified SDI (p=0.003) and the cumulative amount of GC (p=0.006) had significant independent associations with the lowest Z-score. In conclusion, a BMD less than the expected range for age occurs frequently in Brazilian patients with SLE independent of the renal failure. The patients with greater SDIs had lower Z-scores, which suggests a direct association between chronic inflammation from disease and a reduced BMD.

Seleção para a residência médica da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro: percepção dos candidatos sobre o modelo da prova / Admissions to medical residency at the Federal University in Rio de Janeiro: perceptions by applicants concerning the test model

Este trabalho relata a opinião dos candidatos aprovados nos programas de residência médica da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) que concorreram às especialidades, sem pré-requisito, quanto ao modelo de prova, baseado nas modificações propostas pela comissão do processo seletivo 2005. Na elaboração das provas, foram utilizadas como referencial as Diretrizes Curriculares Nacionais do Curso de Graduação de Medicina e a Resolução da Comissão Nacional de Residência Médica. Um questionário estruturado, com questões fechadas, foi distribuído aleatoriamente aos candidatos aprovados nesse concurso. A maioria dos respondentes (84,16 por cento) avaliou como "muito boa" ou "boa" cada etapa do concurso, sendo que a prova prática presencial com pacientes obteve o melhor conceito. Os autores discutem as competências necessárias na atenção à saúde e que serviram de base para as principais modificações introduzidas no processo seletivo. Outro ponto relevante foi a importância da integração interdisciplinar da comissão de seleção. O alto índice de aprovação mostra que as mudanças realizadas foram pertinentes, e os graus atribuídos às diversas etapas do concurso podem contribuir para o aperfeiçoamento do processo seletivo e como instrumento de avaliação educacional dos recém-formados das faculdades de Medicina.

This article reports on the opinions of applicants admitted to the medical residency programs at the Federal University in Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ) (based on those that applied for specialties without prerequisites) in relation to the test model, according to the changes proposed by the 2005 admissions committee. The admissions tests were elaborated on the basis of the National Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Studies in Medicine and a specific ruling by the National Commission on Medical Residency. A structured questionnaire with closed questions was distributed randomly to the applicants that passed the admissions tests. The majority of the respondents (84.16 percent) rated each stage of the admissions process as "very good" or "good", with the highest rating going to the practical examination with patients. The authors discuss the necessary healthcare skills that served as the basis for the principal changes in the admissions process. Another relevant point was the importance of interdisciplinary integration in the admissions committee. The high approval rate shows that the changes were pertinent, and that the scores attributed to the various stages can help improve the admissions process and serve as an evaluation tool for recent medical school graduates.