Epidemiology, management and outcomes of Graves' disease-real life data.

PURPOSE: Treatment options in Graves' disease are clearly defined, but management practices and the perceptions of success are varied. The outcomes of treatment in large consecutive cohorts of Graves' disease have not been well characterised. The study describes the epidemiology, management strategies and medium term outcomes following anti-thyroid drug treatment, radio-iodine ablation and surgery in Graves' disease. METHODS: All patients (n = 659) who received treatment for a new diagnosis of Graves' disease in secondary care over a 5 year period were included with a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 42.9 (29-57.5) months. RESULTS: The age adjusted incidence of adult onset Graves' disease in Sheffield, UK was 24.8 per 100,000 per year. Excluding 35 patients lost to follow-up, 93.1% (n = 581) were controlled on anti-thyroid drug treatment. Of these, 73.6% went into remission following withdrawal of anti-thyroid drugs; 5.2% were still undergoing initial therapy; 13.3% lost control whilst on anti-thyroid drugs; and 7.9% went on to have either surgery or radio-iodine ablation whilst controlled on anti-thyroid drugs. Of the 428 patients who achieved remission, 36.7% relapsed. Of 144 patients who had radio-iodine ablation treatment, 5.6% relapsed and needed further treatment. Of 119 patients having surgery, 5.2% had long-term hypoparathyroidism and none had documented long-term recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy. CONCLUSIONS: In the follow-up, 39.9% of patients underwent surgery or radio-iodine ablation with little morbidity. Up to two-thirds of patients who achieved remission did not relapse. Data on effectiveness and risks of treatments for Graves' disease presented in this study will help clinicians and patients in decision making.

A Randomised Assessment of Trainee Doctors' Understanding and Interpretation of Diagnostic Test Results.

INTRODUCTION: Doctors are unfamiliar with diagnostic accuracy parameters despite routine clinical use of diagnostic tests to estimate disease probability. METHODS: Trainee doctors completed a questionnaire exploring their understanding of diagnostic accuracy parameters; ability to calculate post-test probability of a common surgical condition (appendicitis) and their perceptions on training in this area. To determine whether the method of information provision altered interpretation, trainees were randomised to receive diagnostic test information in three ways: positive test only; positive test with specificity and sensitivity; positive test with positive likelihood ratio in layman terms. RESULTS: 326 candidates were recruited across 30 training sessions. Trainees scored a median of three out of seven in questions concerning knowledge of diagnostic accuracy parameters. This was affected neither by training level (P = 0.737) nor by experience in acute general surgery (P = 0.738). 30 (11.8%) candidates correctly estimated post-test probability; with 86.6% overestimating this value. Neither level of training (P = 0.180) nor experience (P = 0.242) influenced the accuracy of the estimate. Provision of the ultrasound scan results in different ways was not associated with likelihood of a correct response (P = 0.857). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the deficiencies in trainee doctors' understanding and application of diagnostic tests results. Most trainees over-estimated disease probability, increasing the risk of unnecessary intervention and treatment.