Age and alarm symptoms do not predict endoscopic findings among patients with dyspepsia: a multicentre database study.

INTRODUCTION: Symptoms of dyspepsia are common but most patients do not have major upper gastrointestinal pathology. Endoscopy is recommended for dyspeptic patients over the age of 45, or those with certain "alarm" symptoms. We have evaluated the effectiveness of age and "alarm" symptoms for predicting major endoscopic findings in six practising endoscopy centres. METHODS: Clinical variables of consecutive patients with dyspepsia symptoms undergoing upper endoscopy examinations were recorded using a common endoscopy database. Patients who had no previous upper endoscopy or barium radiography were included. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of endoscopic findings. The accuracy of these for predicting endoscopic findings was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic analysis. The sensitivity and specificity of age thresholds from 30 to 70 years were evaluated. RESULTS: Major pathology (tumour, ulcer, or stricture) was found at endoscopy in 787/3815 (21%) patients with dyspepsia. Age, male sex, bleeding, and anaemia were found to be significant but weak independent predictors of endoscopic findings. A multivariate prediction rule based on these factors had poor predictive accuracy (c statistic=0.62). Using a simplified prediction rule of age > or =45 years or the presence of any "alarm" symptom, sensitivity was 87% and specificity was 26%. Increasing or decreasing the age cut off did not significantly improve the predictive accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Age and the presence of "alarm" symptoms are not effective predictors of endoscopic findings among patients with dyspepsia. Better clinical prediction strategies are needed to identify patients with significant upper gastrointestinal pathology.

Sonographic prediction of twin birth weight discordance.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of sonographic prediction of clinically significant twin birth weight discordance (25% or greater) and to determine whether this accuracy is affected by defined fetal and maternal variables. METHODS: Using an established database, we reviewed 338 twin gestations delivered over 10 years as a retrospective cohort. Estimation of fetal weight was calculated by applying the Hadlock formula using composite fetal biometry. Intertwin weight discordance was calculated as the difference in the estimated or actual twin weights (A-B) divided by the weight of the larger twin and was expressed as a percentage. Statistical evaluation included validity (sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values) and reliability assessment of ultrasonographic measurements (intraclass correlation coefficients). Multivariable analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 338 twin gestations, 192 (57%) twin pairs met inclusion criteria. Sonographic prediction of actual intertwin birth weight discordance of 25% or greater had a sensitivity of 55%, specificity of 97%, positive predictive value of 82%, and negative predictive value of 91%. The reliability of estimating intertwin birth weight discordance by ultrasonography was moderately high (intraclass correlation coefficient =.700; 95% confidence interval [CI].620,.765). Multivariable analysis revealed no significant effects of individual maternal or fetal factors on the accuracy of ultrasonographic prediction of intertwin birth weight discordance. CONCLUSION: Sonographic prediction of actual intertwin birth weight discordance of 25% or greater within 16 days of delivery appears to be a valid and reliable method for clinical use. Predictive accuracy is independent of other identifiable maternal or fetal variables.

Validation of virtual colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal polyps and masses: rationale for proper study design.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer, the second-leading cause of cancer-related mortality, is a preventable malignancy in many cases. Despite the availability of several screening modalities, compliance with screening recommendations remains unacceptably low. Virtual colonoscopy is a novel, minimally-invasive technique with the potential to increase colorectal cancer screening rates, but its effectiveness must first be validated. Published studies comparing virtual colonoscopy to conventional colonoscopy have reported varying results. These discrepancies may be attributed to differences in bowel preparation and scanning techniques, as well as errors in endoscopic lesion measurement, endoscopic colonic segmental localization, and the ability of conventional colonoscopy to actually detect lesions. These methodological issues can affect scientific results and ultimately affect the public's perception of this emerging technique. AIM: The goal of this report is to expose existing methodological shortcomings and propose solutions incorporated in this study design. This article describes the rationale, study design, and outcome definitions of a single-center, blinded, direct comparative trial aiming at assessing the ability of virtual colonoscopy to detect colorectal polyps and masses relative to the criterion standard, conventional colonoscopy. DESIGN FEATURES: Bowel preparation was standardized using oral sodium phosphate lavage, orally administered iodinated contrast, and controlled colonic insufflation. Segmental unblinding allowed a second-look when results were discrepant and polyp matching was performed using an algorithm based on segmental localization and lesion size determination. CONCLUSIONS: This methodology could be applied to other studies assessing the accuracy of virtual colonoscopy in order to have uniformity of results.

Determining the clinical efficacy and cost savings of successful external cephalic version.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine predictors of successful external cephalic version and to calculate the associated cost savings achieved with success. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study of 203 women with singleton gestations who underwent external cephalic version was performed. Descriptive, univariate, and multivariate analyses were performed on patient-specific risk data to predict successful version. National claims data were used for the cost simulation. RESULTS: Higher parity (p = 0.02), transverse-oblique presentation (p = 0.001), posterior placenta (p = 0.001), and a longer duration of pregnancy (p = 0.001) significantly increased the likelihood of a successful version. Heavier maternal weight was negatively associated with successful version (p = 0.05). The cost simulation revealed an average savings of $2462 for each successful version. CONCLUSION: This study identifies clinical variables associated with an increased external cephalic version success rate. If, in fact, successful external cephalic version reduces both maternal and fetal morbidity associated with cesarean delivery and, as demonstrated in this analysis, the costs associated with the delivery, then greater effort should be made to maximize the success rate of external cephalic version.