Ocular myasthenia gravis: predictive value of single-fiber electromyography.

Extraocular muscle weakness is the most common presenting sign of myasthenia gravis (MG). More than half of patients presenting with symptoms isolated to these muscles (OMG) develop generalized myasthenia gravis (GMG) over the course of their illness. No clinical, laboratory, or electrophysiological features are recognized that identify these high-risk patients. We have therefore assessed the ability of single-fiber electromyography (SFEMG) to predict the development of GMG in patients presenting with OMG. Thirty-nine consecutive patients presenting with OMG underwent SFEMG of the extensor digitorum communis muscle as well as a battery of other laboratory and imaging studies at the time of diagnosis. All patients were followed prospectively for a minimum of 24 months or until they developed GMG. Two patients were excluded, leaving 37 for assessment. Twenty remained with pure OMG for the entire follow-up period (mean, 55 months). Twenty-six of the 37 had abnormal SFEMG studies at presentation. Eleven of these remained with OMG and 15 developed GMG. Fifty-eight percent of patients with an abnormal SFEMG developed GMG, whereas 82% of those with a normal study remained with OMG. Thus, a normal SFEMG was associated with MG remaining restricted to the extraocular muscles. (P = 0.036, Fisher's exact test), but an abnormal SFEMG was not predictive of subsequent development of GMG.

Massachusetts Risk Management Survey (MaRMS) of teaching hospital physicians.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the risk management knowledge of physicians from Massachusetts teaching hospitals. DESIGN: A survey. SETTING: Participating Massachusetts teaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 639 of some 2,000 staff physicians of participant hospitals who were sent surveys. An additional 174 postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) and PGY3 house officers also completed the survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percent of questions answered correctly, and comparisons between staff physicians and house officers. RESULTS: Staff physicians scored higher (87%) than PGY1s and PGY3s combined (81%), P<0.001. Scores among staff physicians did not differ according to field of medicine, age, proportion of time spent in clinical practice, or years in practice. PGY3s did not score significantly higher than PGY1s (82% vs. 80%). Some 40% of physicians said they ordered more tests than necessary because of malpractice worries; they indicated 72% of their colleagues do so as well. Physicians in obstetrics-gynecology and emergency medicine were more likely to respond yes to this question than physicians in other fields of medicine (P<0.001), as were physicians who had been defendants in a malpractice suit (88 P=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Surveyed staff physicians have an adequate risk management knowledge. Training directors should encourage house officers to attend risk management programs to improve their knowledge. Physicians might overestimate the amount spent on defense medicine based on their perceptions of other physicians.