显示标签为“Diagnosing”的博文。显示所有博文
显示标签为“Diagnosing”的博文。显示所有博文

2013年9月26日星期四

Screening and Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Structured Abstract

Screening and Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Structured Abstract












Gestational Diabetes




Full Title: Screening and Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus


November 2012



This review aims to identify the properties of screening and diagnostic tests for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of screening, to assess the effects of different screening and diagnostic thresholds on outcomes for mothers and their offspring, and to determine the effects of treatment in modifying outcomes for women diagnosed with GDM.
View or download Report


Structured Abstract


Background: There is uncertainty as to the optimal approach for screening and diagnosis of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Based on systematic reviews published in 2003 and 2008, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded that there was insufficient evidence upon which to make a recommendation regarding routine screening of all pregnant women.
Objectives:



  1. Identify properties of screening tests for GDM.

  2. Evaluate benefits and harms of screening for GDM.

  3. Assess the effects of different screening and diagnostic thresholds on outcomes for mothers and their offspring.

  4. Determine the benefits and harms of treatment for a diagnosis of GDM.


Data Sources: We searched 15 electronic databases from 1995 to May 2012, including MEDLINE® and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (which contains the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group registry); gray literature; Web sites of relevant organizations; trial registries; and reference lists.
Methods: Two reviewers independently conducted study selection and quality assessment. One reviewer extracted data, and a second reviewer verified the data. We included published randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective cohort studies that compared any screening or diagnostic test with any other screening or diagnostic test; any screening with no screening; women who met various thresholds for GDM with those who did not meet various criteria, where women in both groups did not receive treatment; any treatment for GDM with no treatment. We conducted a descriptive analysis for all studies and meta-analyses when appropriate. Key outcomes included preeclampsia, maternal weight gain, birth injury, shoulder dystocia, neonatal hypoglycemia, macrosomia, and long-term metabolic outcomes for the child and mother.
Results: The search identified 14,398 citations and included 97 studies (6 randomized controlled trials, 63 prospective cohort studies, and 28 retrospective cohort studies).
Prevalence of GDM varied across studies and diagnostic criteria: American Diabetes Association (75 g) 2 to 19 percent; Carpenter and Coustan 3.6 to 38 percent; National Diabetes Data Group 1.4 to 50 percent; and World Health Organization 2 to 24.5 percent. Lack of a gold standard for the diagnosis of GDM and little evidence about the accuracy of screening strategies for GDM remain problematic. The 50 g oral glucose challenge test with a glucose threshold of 130 mg/dL versus 140 mg/dL improves sensitivity and reduces specificity. Both thresholds have high negative predictive values (NPV) but variable positive predictive values (PPVs) across a range of prevalence. There was limited evidence for the screening of GDM diagnosed less than 24 weeks’ gestation (three studies). One study compared the International Association of Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Groups’ (IADPSG) diagnostic criteria with a two-step strategy. Sensitivity was 82 percent, specificity was 94 percent.
Only two studies examined the effects on health outcomes from screening for GDM. One retrospective cohort study (n=1,000) showed more cesarean deliveries in the screened group. A survey within a prospective cohort study (n=93) found the same incidence of macrosomia (≥4.3 kg) in screened and unscreened groups (7 percent each group).
Thirty-eight studies examined health outcomes for women who met different criteria for GDM and did not undergo treatment. Methodologically strong studies showed a continuous positive relationship between increasing glucose levels and the incidence of primary cesarean section and macrosomia. One of these studies also found significantly fewer cases of preeclampsia, cesarean section, shoulder dystocia and/or birth injury, clinical neonatal hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia for women without GDM compared with those meeting IADPSG criteria. Among the other studies, fewer cases of preeclampsia were observed for women with no GDM and women who were false positive versus those meeting Carpenter and Coustan criteria. For maternal weight gain, few comparisons showed differences. For fetal birth trauma, single studies showed no differences for women with Carpenter and Coustan GDM and World Health Organization impaired glucose tolerance versus women without GDM. Women diagnosed based on National Diabetes Data Group GDM had more fetal birth trauma compared with women without GDM. Fewer cases of macrosomia were seen in the group without GDM compared with Carpenter and Coustan GDM, Carpenter and Coustan 1 abnormal oral glucose tolerance test, National Diabetes Data Group GDM, National Diabetes Data Group false positives, and World Health Organization impaired glucose tolerance. Fewer cases of neonatal hypoglycemia were found among patient groups without GDM compared with those meeting Carpenter and Coustan criteria. There was more childhood obesity for Carpenter and Coustan GDM versus patient groups with no GDM.
Eleven studies compared diet modification, glucose monitoring, and insulin as needed with no treatment. Moderate evidence showed fewer cases of preeclampsia in the treated group. The evidence was insufficient for maternal weight gain and birth injury. Moderate evidence found less shoulder dystocia with treatment for GDM. Low evidence showed no difference for neonatal hypoglycemia between treated and untreated GDM. Moderate evidence showed benefits of treatment for reduction of macrosomia (>4,000 g). There was insufficient evidence for long-term metabolic outcomes among offspring.
Five studies provided data on harms of treating GDM. No difference was found for cesarean delivery, induction of labor, small for gestational age, or admission to a neonatal intensive care unit. There were significantly more prenatal visits among those treated.
Conclusions: While evidence supports a positive association with increasing plasma glucose on a 75 g or 100 g oral glucose tolerance test and macrosomia and primary cesarean section, clear thresholds for increased risk were not found. The 50 g oral glucose challenge test has high NPV but variable PPV. Treatment of GDM results in less preeclampsia and macrosomia. Current evidence does not show that treatment of GDM has an effect on neonatal hypoglycemia or future poor metabolic outcomes. There is little evidence of short-term harm from treating GDM other than an increased demand for services. Research is needed on the long-term metabolic outcome for offspring as a result of GDM and its treatment, and the “real world” effects of GDM treatment on use of care.





Download Report


Screening and Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus



Evidence-based Practice Center: University of Alberta



Current as of November 2012




Internet Citation:


Screening and Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus, Structured Abstract. November 2012. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/gdmexuptp.htm



Screening and Diagnosing Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Structured Abstract


2013年9月21日星期六

Noninvasive Technologies for Diagnosing Coronary Artery Disease in Women: Comparative Effectiveness - Clinician Summary | AHRQ Effective Health Care Program

Noninvasive Technologies for Diagnosing Coronary Artery Disease in Women: Comparative Effectiveness – Clinician Summary | AHRQ Effective Health Care Program



Some Noninvasive Tests Found to Excel at Detecting Coronary Artery Disease in Women


Noninvasive tests that produce images of how well the heart is functioning, such as echocardiography and single proton emission computed tomography, can accurately diagnose coronary artery disease (CAD) in women with symptoms, according to a new research review from AHRQ’s Effective Health Care Program.  These tests were more accurate than electrocardiography, which monitors heartbeats to detect restricted blood flow.  The new research review, Noninvasive Technologies for the Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease in Women, found there is insufficient evidence from studies to determine which clinical or demographic factors may influence the diagnostic accuracy, risk determinations, prognostic value, treatment decisions, clinical outcomes, or harms associated with these tests.

2013年9月12日星期四

Diagnosing, treating strep throat key to preventing rheumatic heart disease | American Heart Association

Diagnosing, treating strep throat key to preventing rheumatic heart disease | American Heart Association





Diagnosing, treating strep throat key to preventing rheumatic heart disease



Diagnosing, treating strep throat key to preventing rheumatic heart disease

American Heart Association Scientific Statement

Statement Highlights:• Rheumatic fever, though rare, can be prevented by accurate diagnosis and treatment of strep throat.
• A certain type of strep causes rheumatic fever. Strep can be identified by a simple test at your doctor’s office.
• Not all sore throats are strep – most are viral
.


DALLAS, Feb. 26, 2009 — Accurately diagnosing and treating strep throat is the key to preventing rheumatic fever and subsequent rheumatic heart disease, according to an updated American Heart Association scientific statement published in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.
Rheumatic fever is an inflammatory disease that can affect many of the body’s connective tissues, especially those of the heart, joints, brain or skin. When the heart valves are damaged by rheumatic fever it leads to rheumatic heart disease which can last a lifetime. Rheumatic fever is caused when a particular strain of strep throat (group A β-hemolytic streptococcus, or GAS pharyngitis) is left untreated. Rheumatic fever/rheumatic heart disease continues to be the leading cause of cardiovascular death during the first five decades of life in the developing world.
A throat culture, taken by swabbing the back of the throat, is considered the “gold standard” for identifying this strep infection. The culture and good clinical judgment are the best ways to diagnose strep throat, said Michael A. Gerber, M.D., lead author of the scientific statement.
“It’s important to know that while strep throat is most common in children five to 15 years old, most sore throats in this age group are not caused by this particular type of strep,” said Gerber, Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio. “In fact, most are caused by viruses which do not raise the risk of rheumatic fever and are not treatable with antibiotics.”
The update of the American Heart Association’s 1995 scientific statement gives healthcare providers here and abroad the most recent evidence for preventing rheumatic fever, including specific diagnostic instructions and antibiotic treatment.
Preventing initial episodes of rheumatic fever (primary prevention) requires accurate diagnosis and proper antibiotic treatment of GAS pharyngitis. Patients who have had an attack of rheumatic fever are at very high risk of developing recurrences if they have another case of strep throat. They need continuous antibiotics to prevent recurrences (secondary prevention). Patients who have had rheumatic carditis (inflammation of the heart or area around the heart) should also receive preventive antibiotic therapy well into adulthood and perhaps for life. Penicillin is the agent of choice for secondary prevention, but there are other antibiotics that are acceptable alternatives for people allergic to penicillin.
Recurrent episodes of rheumatic fever can worsen rheumatic heart disease or, less frequently, cause rheumatic heart disease in people who didn’t develop it during their first infection.
Signs of GAS pharyngitis include (but are not limited to):
• sudden-onset of sore throat,
• pain on swallowing,
• fever, usually 101-104F,
• headache;
• abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting may also occur, especially in children.
These signs can occur with other upper respiratory tract infections, and it can be difficult even for an experienced healthcare provider to tell GAS pharyngitis from other types of pharyngitis, so the throat culture is important for accurate diagnosis.
Symptoms of rheumatic fever vary widely, but may include:
• fever,
• painful, tender, red, swollen joints,
• pain in one joint that migrates to another one,
• heart palpitations,
• chest pain,
• shortness of breath,
• skin rashes,
• small, painless nodules under the skin.
Rheumatic fever is rare in children younger than 3 years of age in the U.S. Among adults, initial attacks of rheumatic fever are rare, but do occur. Overall, the progression from strep throat to rheumatic fever is rare in the United States, but a few localized acute rheumatic fever outbreaks in civilian and military populations were reported in the 1980s.
“This reappearance of acute rheumatic fever reminds physicians, parents and others about the importance of continued attention to prevention of rheumatic fever in the United States and in other developed countries,” said Gerber.
Co authors include: Robert Baltimore, M.D.; Charles Eaton, M.D.; Michael Gewitz, M.D.; Anne Rowley, M.D.; Stanford Shulman, M.D.; Kathryn Taubert, Ph.D.


###
The American Heart Association receives funding primarily from individuals; foundations and corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations and fund specific association programs and events. The association has strict policies to prevent these relationships from influencing science content. Revenues from pharmaceutical and device corporations are available at www.americanheart.org/corporatefunding.
NR09 – 1028 (Circ/Gerber)