25 research outputs found
Impact of remote vital sign monitoring on health outcomes in acute respiratory infection and exacerbation of chronic respiratory conditions:systematic review and meta-analysis
No full textBackground Our aim was to investigate the effectiveness of virtual wards on health outcomes in patients with acute respiratory infection.Methods We searched four electronic databases from January 2000–March 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We included studies in people with acute respiratory illness or an acute exacerbation of a chronic respiratory illness, where a patient or carer measured vital signs (oximetry, blood pressure, pulse) for initial diagnosis and/or asynchronous monitoring, in a person living in private housing or a care home. We performed random effects meta-analysis for mortality.Results We reviewed 5834 abstracts, 107 full texts, and judged nine RCTs relevant for inclusion in which sample sizes ranged from 37–389 (total=1627), mean ages between 61 and 77 years, and five judged to be at low risk of bias. Five RCTs had fewer hospital admissions in the intervention (monitoring) group, out of which two studies reported a significant difference. Two studies reported more admissions in the intervention group, with one reporting a significant difference. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis on healthcare utilisation and hospitalisation data due to lack of outcome definition in the primary studies and variable outcome measurements. We judged two studies to be at low risk of bias. The pooled summary risk ratio for mortality was 0.90 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.48).Conclusion The limited literature for remote monitoring of vital signs in acute respiratory illness provides weak evidence that these interventions have a variable impact on hospitalisations and healthcare utilisation, and may reduce mortality
Why can't my child see 3D television?
No full textA child encountering difficulty in watching three-dimensional (3D) stereoscopic displays could have an underlying ocular disorder. It is therefore valuable to understand the differential diagnoses and so conduct an appropriate clinical assessment to address concerns about poor 3D vision.</p
Clinical judgement by primary care physicians for the diagnosis of all‐cause dementia or cognitive impairment in symptomatic people
No full textBackgroundIn primary care, general practitioners (GPs) unavoidably reach a clinical judgement about a patient as part of their encounter with patients, and so clinical judgement can be an important part of the diagnostic evaluation. Typically clinical decision making about what to do next for a patient incorporates clinical judgement about the diagnosis with severity of symptoms and patient factors, such as their ideas and expectations for treatment. When evaluating patients for dementia, many GPs report using their own judgement to evaluate cognition, using information that is immediately available at the point of care, to decide whether someone has or does not have dementia, rather than more formal tests.ObjectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of GPs’ clinical judgement for diagnosing cognitive impairment and dementia in symptomatic people presenting to primary care. To investigate the heterogeneity of test accuracy in the included studies.Search methodsWe searched MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science), and LILACs (BIREME) on 16 September 2021.Selection criteriaWe selected cross‐sectional and cohort studies from primary care where clinical judgement was determined by a GP either prospectively (after consulting with a patient who has presented to a specific encounter with the doctor) or retrospectively (based on knowledge of the patient and review of the medical notes, but not relating to a specific encounter with the patient). The target conditions were dementia and cognitive impairment (mild cognitive impairment and dementia) and we included studies with any appropriate reference standard such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), International Classification of Diseases (ICD), aetiological definitions, or expert clinical diagnosis.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors screened titles and abstracts for relevant articles and extracted data separately with differences resolved by consensus discussion. We used QUADAS‐2 to evaluate the risk of bias and concerns about applicability in each study using anchoring statements. We performed meta‐analysis using the bivariate method.Main resultsWe identified 18,202 potentially relevant articles, of which 12,427 remained after de‐duplication. We assessed 57 full‐text articles and extracted data on 11 studies (17 papers), of which 10 studies had quantitative data. We included eight studies in the meta‐analysis for the target condition dementia and four studies for the target condition cognitive impairment. Most studies were at low risk of bias as assessed with the QUADAS‐2 tool, except for the flow and timing domain where four studies were at high risk of bias, and the reference standard domain where two studies were at high risk of bias. Most studies had low concern about applicability to the review question in all QUADAS‐2 domains.Average age ranged from 73 years to 83 years (weighted average 77 years). The percentage of female participants in studies ranged from 47% to 100%. The percentage of people with a final diagnosis of dementia was between 2% and 56% across studies (a weighted average of 21%). For the target condition dementia, in individual studies sensitivity ranged from 34% to 91% and specificity ranged from 58% to 99%. In the meta‐analysis for dementia as the target condition, in eight studies in which a total of 826 of 2790 participants had dementia, the summary diagnostic accuracy of clinical judgement of general practitioners was sensitivity 58% (95% confidence interval (CI) 43% to 72%), specificity 89% (95% CI 79% to 95%), positive likelihood ratio 5.3 (95% CI 2.4 to 8.2), and negative likelihood ratio 0.47 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.61).For the target condition cognitive impairment, in individual studies sensitivity ranged from 58% to 97% and specificity ranged from 40% to 88%. The summary diagnostic accuracy of clinical judgement of general practitioners in four studies in which a total of 594 of 1497 participants had cognitive impairment was sensitivity 84% (95% CI 60% to 95%), specificity 73% (95% CI 50% to 88%), positive likelihood ratio 3.1 (95% CI 1.4 to 4.7), and negative likelihood ratio 0.23 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.40).It was impossible to draw firm conclusions in the analysis of heterogeneity because there were small numbers of studies. For specificity we found the data were compatible with studies that used ICD‐10, or applied retrospective judgement, had higher reported specificity compared to studies with DSM definitions or using prospective judgement. In contrast for sensitivity, we found studies that used a prospective index test may have had higher sensitivity than studies that used a retrospective index test.Authors' conclusionsClinical judgement of GPs is more specific than sensitive for the diagnosis of dementia. It would be necessary to use additional tests to confirm the diagnosis for either target condition, or to confirm the absence of the target conditions, but clinical judgement may inform the choice of further testing. Many people who a GP judges as having dementia will have the condition. People with false negative diagnoses are likely to have less severe disease and some could be identified by using more formal testing in people who GPs judge as not having dementia. Some false positives may require similar practical support to those with dementia, but some ‐ such as some people with depression ‐ may suffer delayed intervention for an alternative treatable pathology.</p
Metabolic Syndrome, Diabetes, Poor Cognition, and Dementia in the Caerphilly Prospective Study.
No full text: We have examined whether metabolic syndrome is associated with intermediate risk of impaired cognition between people with and without diabetes. Men aged 45 to 59 years were identified from Caerphilly in South Wales, United Kingdom. Participation rate was 89% (41% of the original cohort) and 2,512 men were examined in phase one from July 1979 until September 1983. Follow-up examinations occurred at four intervals until 2004 when 1,225 men participated. Participants were categorized on the basis of their exposure to metabolic syndrome not diabetes (MSND) and diabetes (with or without metabolic syndrome) at each of the first three phases. Neuropsychological outcomes and clinical diagnosis of cognitive impairment not dementia (CIND) and dementia were assessed at phase five. The prevalence of MSND increased from 1% to 5% and for diabetes from 3% to 9% between phase one and phase three. 15% of participants had CIND and 8% dementia. People with diabetes, but not those with MSND, at phases one, two, or three had poorer cognition at phase five (adjusted ? coefficient AH4 -4.3 95% CI -7.9, -0.7; phase two: -2.5 95% CI -4.7, -0.3; phase three: -2.3 95% CI -4.2, -0.5). The adjusted odds ratio (phase one) for diabetes and CIND was 4.0 (95% CI 1.4, 11.5) and dementia 0.61 (95% CI 0.07, 5.37). After adjustment, higher systolic blood pressure was the only component of the metabolic syndrome associated with worse cognitive outcomes. Diabetes in mid-life, but not MSND, is associated with impaired cognition and increased odds of CIND in later life
There is no association between a measure of clinical care and the response rate of GPs to postal surveys:a methodological study
No full textThere has been much research into factors that can be modified to improve the response rates of general practitioners to surveys and to the demographic characteristics of those who do and do not respond. However, response is yet to be considered with respect to the quality of clinical care provided by GPs. In the UK, one measure of quality of care is the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) score achieved by a general practice
The range of peripapillary retinal nerve fibre layer and optic disc parameters in children aged up to but not including 18 years of age, as measured by optical coherence tomography:protocol for a systematic review
No full textBackgroundThe parameters of the optic disc and peripapillary retinal nerve fibre layer (pRNFL) in children may vary with disease processes that contribute to visual impairment and blindness and so could be useful as an objective measure in at-risk children. There is no standardised reference for the normal parameters of the optic disc and pRNFL in children; however, there are a large number of small individual studies that have been undertaken to look at these measures.MethodsA systematic review of current literature on the range of pRNFL and optic disc parameters in children aged less than 18 years will be performed. Studies will be considered for review if they report numerical data on optic disc and pRNFL parameters, measured using optical coherence tomography. Outcome measures will include mean pRNFL thickness and cup-disc ratio. The bibliographic databases Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science will be systematically searched from 1991. Screening of search results will be conducted by two authors working independently, as will extraction of primary and secondary outcome data. Ten per cent of all other data extraction will be checked by a second author. Results will be compiled and presented in evidence tables. Where possible and appropriate, study-specific estimates will be combined to obtain an overall summary estimate of pRNFL thickness and cup-disc ratio across studies and results will be presented by age of population. Subgroup analyses will be undertaken for children of different ethnicities.DiscussionThis review aims to provide an overview of the parameters of the optic disc and pRNFL in children of different ages in order to identify gaps in knowledge and to improve understanding of what might be considered within/outside the range of normality. The findings will be presented in peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at conferences.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD4201603306
Informant accuracy of IQCODE, AD8 and GPCOGi for diagnosis of dementia: does your friend know best?
No full textIncreasing numbers of people require evaluation for possible dementia. However, research on the accuracy of informant questionnaires in primary care remains limited. This study assessed the diagnostic accuracy of IQCODE, AD8, and GPCOGi based on the informant's relationship to the patient. We recruited 240 participants from 21 general practices in South West England. The reference standard for a diagnosis of dementia was made by a specialist clinician using ICD-10 criteria. A threshold of greater than 3.3 on IQCODE, greater or equal to 2 on AD8 and less than 5 on the informant component of GPCOG was used to indicate an abnormal test. Of 238 participants with informant data, 131 had dementia, 60 had CIND, and 47 had normal cognition. Median informant age was 70 years (IQR 60 years to 78 years). 71% of informants were female and 56% were spouses. On all three questionnaires, compared to spouses, adult descendants tended to score participants more cognitively impaired, whereas friends scored participants less cognitively impaired. However, there was little evidence of difference by informant type once fully adjusted. Sensitivity by informant type ranged from 91 to 100% for IQCODE, 94-100% for AD8 and 99% to100% for GPCOGi. There was no significant difference in sensitivity by informant type. Specificity by informant type ranged from 25 to 79% for IQCODE, 13-75% for AD8 and 17-38% for GPCOGi. Adult descendants tended to have the lowest specificity at 25% (95% CI 10-47%) for IQCODE, 13% (95% CI 3-32%) for AD8 and 17% (95% CI 5-37%) for GPCOGi. Friends tended to have the highest specificity at 79% (95% CI 49-95%) for IQCODE, 75% (95% CI 48-93%) for AD8 and 38% (95% CI 15-64%) for GPCOGi. An informant of any relationship type, using IQCODE, AD8 or GPCOGi may be useful for ruling out dementia but not for ruling it in. We found no evidence of difference between spouse or adult descendants but friends performed significantly better overall on IQCODE and AD8. [Abstract copyright: © 2025. The Author(s).
What helps or hinders the communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care? A systematic review with narrative synthesis
No full textIntroduction The communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care helps to ensure that patients with life-limiting illness receive appropriate, coordinated care in line with their preferences. However, little is known about this information-sharing process. Aim To determine how poor prognosis is communicated from secondary care to primary care. Design and setting Systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. Method Four electronic databases were searched from 1st January 2000 to 17th May 2021, supplemented by hand-searching key journals. One quarter of titles and abstracts were independently screened by a second reviewer. Two reviewers undertook data extraction and quality appraisal, independently using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using narrative synthesis. Reporting follows PRISMA guidance. Results Searches identified 23,853 unique studies of which 30 met the inclusion criteria. Few studies had a focus on the interprofessional communication of poor prognosis. Information about prognosis was not commonly communicated from secondary to primary care and was more likely to occur if death was imminent. Lack of identification of poor prognosis by secondary care teams was a barrier. Facilitators included shared electronic records and direct clinician-clinician contact. GPs welcomed this information from secondary care and felt it was vital for continuity of care. Conclusion Although the communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care is highly valued, it is rare and associated with cultural and systemic challenges. Further research is necessary to understand the information needs of GPs and to explore the challenges facing secondary care clinicians initiating this communication
A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Study Investigating General Practitioner Clinical Impression and Brief Cognitive Assessments for Dementia in Primary Care, Compared to Specialized Assessment
No full textBackground: Many health systems are interested in increasing the number of uncomplicated and typical dementia diagnoses that are made in primary care, but the comparative accuracy of tests is unknown. Objective: Calculate diagnostic accuracy of brief cognitive tests in primary careDesign: We did a diagnostic test accuracy study in general practice, in people over 70 years who had consulted their GP with cognitive symptoms but had no prior diagnosis of dementia. The reference standard was specialist assessment, adjudicated for difficult cases, according to ICD-10. We assessed 16 index tests at a research clinic, and additionally analysed referring GPs clinical judgement. Results: 240 participants had a median age of 80 years, of whom 126 were men and 132 had dementia. Sensitivity of individual tests at the recommended thresholds ranged from 56% for GP judgement (specificity 89%) to 100% for MoCA (specificity 16%). Specificity of individual tests ranged from 4% for Sniffin’ sticks (sensitivity 100%) to 91% for TUG (sensitivity 23%). The 95% centile of test duration in people with dementia ranged from 3 minutes for 6CIT and TAC, to 16 minutes for MoCA. Combining tests with GP judgement increased test specificity and decreased sensitivity: e.g., MoCA with GP Judgement had specificity 87% and sensitivity 55%. Conclusions Using GP judgement to inform selection of tests was an efficient strategy. Using IQCODE in people who GPs judge as having dementia and 6CIT in people who GPs judge as having no dementia, would be a time-efficient and accurate diagnostic assessment.The original protocol for the study is available at https://bmcfampract.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12875-016-0475-
Montreal Cognitive Assessment for the detection of dementia
No full textBackground: Dementia is a progressive syndrome of global cognitive impairment with significant health and social care costs. Global prevalence is projected to increase, particularly in resource‐limited settings. Recent policy changes in Western countries to increase detection mandates a careful examination of the diagnostic accuracy of neuropsychological tests for dementia.
Objectives: To determine the accuracy of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for the detection of dementia.
Search methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews, Science Citation Index, PsycINFO and LILACS databases to August 2012. In addition, we searched specialised sources containing diagnostic studies and reviews, including MEDION (Meta‐analyses van Diagnostisch Onderzoek), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), HTA (Health Technology Assessment Database), ARIF (Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility) and C‐EBLM (International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Committee for Evidence‐based Laboratory Medicine) databases. We also searched ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group specialized register of diagnostic and intervention studies). We identified further relevant studies from the PubMed ‘related articles’ feature and by tracking key studies in Science Citation Index and Scopus. We also searched for relevant grey literature from the Web of Science Core Collection, including Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), PhD theses and contacted researchers with potential relevant data. // Selection criteria: Cross‐sectional designs where all participants were recruited from the same sample were sought; case‐control studies were excluded due to high chance of bias. We searched for studies from memory clinics, hospital clinics, primary care and community populations. We excluded studies of early onset dementia, dementia from a secondary cause, or studies where participants were selected on the basis of a specific disease type such as Parkinson’s disease or specific settings such as nursing homes. //
Data collection and analysis:
We extracted dementia study prevalence and dichotomised test positive/test negative results with thresholds used to diagnose dementia. This allowed calculation of sensitivity and specificity if not already reported in the study. Study authors were contacted where there was insufficient information to complete the 2x2 tables. We performed quality assessment according to the QUADAS‐2 criteria.
Methodological variation in selected studies precluded quantitative meta‐analysis, therefore results from individual studies were presented with a narrative synthesis. // Main results: Seven studies were selected: three in memory clinics, two in hospital clinics, none in primary care and two in population‐derived samples. There were 9422 participants in total, but most of studies recruited only small samples, with only one having more than 350 participants. The prevalence of dementia was 22% to 54% in the clinic‐based studies, and 5% to 10% in population samples. In the four studies that used the recommended threshold score of 26 or over indicating normal cognition, the MoCA had high sensitivity of 0.94 or more but low specificity of 0.60 or less. // Authors' conclusions: The overall quality and quantity of information is insufficient to make recommendations on the clinical utility of MoCA for detecting dementia in different settings. Further studies that do not recruit participants based on diagnoses already present (case‐control design) but apply diagnostic tests and reference standards prospectively are required. Methodological clarity could be improved in subsequent DTA studies of MoCA by reporting findings using recommended guidelines (e.g. STARDdem). Thresholds lower than 26 are likely to be more useful for optimal diagnostic accuracy of MoCA in dementia, but this requires confirmation in further studies
