Indications for ordering thyroid-stimulating hormone in noncritically ill adult inpatients-A Delphi consensus recommendation.

BACKGROUND: Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) is ordered commonly among inpatients, but the possibility of nonthyroidal illness syndrome challenges interpretation. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to obtain Canadian consensus on appropriate indications for ordering TSH in the first 48 h following presentation of a noncritically ill internal medicine patient. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Canadian endocrinologists with inpatient expertise were invited via snowball sampling to an online 3-round Delphi study. Main Outcome and Measures using a 6-point Likert scale, they rated 58 indications on appropriateness for measuring TSH in medical inpatients. These indications included clinical presentations, signs, and symptoms. Items that reached consensus and agreement (≥80% of participants selecting a rating of 5 or 6 on the Likert scale) were tabulated and dropped after each round. Qualitative analysis of comments identified additional contextual considerations as themes. RESULTS: There were 45 participants (academic setting: 84%) representing 8 provinces (Ontario: 64%). Rounds 2 and 3 were completed by 42 and 33 participants, respectively. Nine indications reached consensus and agreement: presumed myxedema coma, presumed thyroid storm, atrial fibrillation/flutter, euvolemic hyponatremia, proptosis, adrenal insufficiency, hypothermia, thyroid medication noncompliance, and goiter. There was also agreement that two contextual considerations identified in thematic analysis, including a recent abnormal outpatient TSH, and the presence of other findings of thyroid dysfunction, would significantly change some mid-range responses. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian experts agreed upon nine specific indications for ordering an inpatient TSH, with others requiring consideration of previous TSH measurement and clinical context.

Understanding culture and HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.

Early in the study of HIV/AIDS, culture was invoked to explain differences in the disease patterns between sub-Saharan Africa and Western countries. Unfortunately, in an attempt to explain the statistics, many of the presumed risk factors were impugned in the absence of evidence. Many cultural practices were stripped of their meanings, societal context and historical positioning and transformed into cofactors of disease. Other supposedly beneficial cultural traits were used to explain the absence of disease in certain populations, implicitly blaming victims in other groups. Despite years of study, assumptions about culture as a cofactor in the spread of HIV/AIDS have persisted, despite a lack of empirical evidence. In recent years, more and more ideas about cultural causality have been called into question, and often disproved by studies. Thus, in light of new evidence, a review of purported cultural causes of disease, enhanced by an understanding of the differences between individual and population risks, is both warranted and long overdue. The preponderance of evidence suggests that culture as a singular determinant in the African epidemic of HIV/AIDS falls flat when disabused of its biased and ethnocentric assumptions.