Tests used to evaluate dizziness in primary care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dros J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2942928 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe diagnostic approach to dizzy, older patients is not straightforward as many organ systems can be involved and evidence for diagnostic strategies is lacking. A first differentiation in diagnostic subtypes or profiles may guide the diagnostic process of dizziness and can serve as a classification system in future research. In the literature this has been done, but based on pathophysiological reasoning only.ObjectiveTo establish a classification of diagnostic profiles of dizziness based on empirical data.DesignCross-sectional study.Participants and setting417 consecutive patients of 65 years and older presenting with dizziness to 45 primary care physicians in the Netherlands from July 2006 to January 2008.MethodsWe performed tests, including patient history, and physical and additional examination, previously selected by an international expert panel and based on an earlier systematic review. We used the results of these tests in a principal component analysis for exploration, data-reduction and finally differentiation into diagnostic dizziness profiles.ResultsDemographic data and the results of the tests yielded 221 variables, of which 49 contributed to the classification of dizziness into six diagnostic profiles, that may be named as follows: "frailty", "psychological", "cardiovascular", "presyncope", "non-specific dizziness" and "ENT". These explained 32% of the variance.ConclusionsEmpirically identified components classify dizziness into six profiles. This classification takes into account the heterogeneity and multicausality of dizziness and may serve as starting point for research on diagnostic strategies and can be a first step in an evidence based diagnostic approach of dizzy older patients.
| S-EPMC3031582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch comparing C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and plasma viscosity (PV) in primary care is lacking. Clinicians often test multiple inflammatory markers, leading to concerns about overuse.AimTo compare the diagnostic accuracies of CRP, ESR, and PV, and to evaluate whether measuring two inflammatory markers increases accuracy.Design and settingProspective cohort study in UK primary care using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.MethodThe authors compared diagnostic test performance of inflammatory markers, singly and paired, for relevant disease, defined as any infections, autoimmune conditions, or cancers. For each of the three tests (CRP, ESR, and PV), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under receiver operator curve (AUC) were calculated.ResultsParticipants comprised 136 961 patients with inflammatory marker testing in 2014; 83 761 (61.2%) had a single inflammatory marker at the index date, and 53 200 (38.8%) had multiple inflammatory markers. For 'any relevant disease', small differences were seen between the three tests; AUC ranged from 0.659 to 0.682. CRP had the highest overall AUC, largely because of marginally superior performance in infection (AUC CRP 0.617, versus ESR 0.589, P<0.001). Adding a second test gave limited improvement in the AUC for relevant disease (CRP 0.682, versus CRP plus ESR 0.688, P<0.001); this is of debatable clinical significance. The NPV for any single inflammatory marker was 94% compared with 94.1% for multiple negative tests.ConclusionTesting multiple inflammatory markers simultaneously does not increase ability to rule out disease and should generally be avoided. CRP has marginally superior diagnostic accuracy for infections, and is equivalent for autoimmune conditions and cancers, so should generally be the first-line test.
| S-EPMC6582449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDialog agents (chatbots) have a long history of application in health care, where they have been used for tasks such as supporting patient self-management and providing counseling. Their use is expected to grow with increasing demands on health systems and improving artificial intelligence (AI) capability. Approaches to the evaluation of health care chatbots, however, appear to be diverse and haphazard, resulting in a potential barrier to the advancement of the field.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify the technical (nonclinical) metrics used by previous studies to evaluate health care chatbots.MethodsStudies were identified by searching 7 bibliographic databases (eg, MEDLINE and PsycINFO) in addition to conducting backward and forward reference list checking of the included studies and relevant reviews. The studies were independently selected by two reviewers who then extracted data from the included studies. Extracted data were synthesized narratively by grouping the identified metrics into categories based on the aspect of chatbots that the metrics evaluated.ResultsOf the 1498 citations retrieved, 65 studies were included in this review. Chatbots were evaluated using 27 technical metrics, which were related to chatbots as a whole (eg, usability, classifier performance, speed), response generation (eg, comprehensibility, realism, repetitiveness), response understanding (eg, chatbot understanding as assessed by users, word error rate, concept error rate), and esthetics (eg, appearance of the virtual agent, background color, and content).ConclusionsThe technical metrics of health chatbot studies were diverse, with survey designs and global usability metrics dominating. The lack of standardization and paucity of objective measures make it difficult to compare the performance of health chatbots and could inhibit advancement of the field. We suggest that researchers more frequently include metrics computed from conversation logs. In addition, we recommend the development of a framework of technical metrics with recommendations for specific circumstances for their inclusion in chatbot studies.
| S-EPMC7305563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Dizziness is a common reason for consulting a general practitioner and there is a broad range of possible underlying aetiologies. There are few evidence-based data about prevalence, aetiology and prognosis in primary care. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of symptom-evaluating studies on prevalence, aetiology or prognosis of dizziness in primary care. METHODS:We systematically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE. Two independent researchers screened titles and abstracts according to predefined criteria. We included all studies evaluating the symptoms 'dizziness' or 'vertigo' as a reason for consultation in primary care. We extracted data about study population and methodology and prevalence, aetiology and prognosis. Two raters independently judged study quality and risk of bias. We investigated the variation across studies using forest plots, I2 and prediction intervals. Since we anticipated a great amount of clinical and unexplained statistical heterogeneity, we provided qualitative syntheses instead of pooled estimates. RESULTS:We identified 31 studies (22 on prevalence, 14 on aetiology and 8 on prognosis). Consultation prevalence differs between 1,0 and 15,5%. The most common aetiologies are vestibular/peripheral (5,4-42,1%), benign peripheral positional vertigo (4,3-39,5%), vestibular neuritis (0,6-24,0%), Menière's disease (1,4-2,7%), cardiovascular disease (3,8-56,8%), neurological disease (1,4-11,4%), psychogenic (1,8-21,6%), no clear diagnosis (0,0-80,2%). While studies based on subjective patient assessment reported improvement rates from 37 to 77%, these findings could not be confirmed when applying instruments that measure symptom severity or quality of life. CONCLUSION:There is a broad variety of possible underlying diseases for the symptom dizziness. There exist only few methodologically sound studies concerning aetiology and prognosis of dizziness.
| S-EPMC5819275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Vector control interventions play a fundamental role in the control and elimination of vector-borne diseases. The evaluation of vector control products relies on bioassays, laboratory and semi-field tests using live insects to assess the product's effectiveness. Bioassay method development requires a rigorous validation process to ensure that relevant methods are used to capture appropriate entomological endpoints which accurately and precisely describe likely efficacy against disease vectors as well as product characteristics within the manufacturing tolerance ranges for insecticide content specified by the World Health Organization. Currently, there are no standardized guidelines for bioassay method validation in vector control. This report presents a framework for bioassay validation that draws on accepted validation processes from the chemical and healthcare fields and which can be applied for evaluating bioassays and semi-field tests in vector control. The validation process has been categorized into four stages: preliminary development; feasibility experiments; internal validation, and external validation. A properly validated method combined with an appropriate experimental design and data analyses that account for both the variability of the method and the product is needed to generate reliable estimates of product efficacy to ensure that at-risk communities have timely access to safe and reliable vector control products.
| S-EPMC10540336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Dizziness is a common and often disabling symptom, but diagnosis often remains unclear; especially in older persons where dizziness tends to be multicausal. Research on dizziness-related impairment might provide options for a functional oriented approach, with less focus on finding diagnoses. We therefore studied dizziness-related impairment in older primary care patients and aimed to identify indicators related to this impairment. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study we included 417 consecutive patients of 65 years and older presenting with dizziness to 45 general practitioners in the Netherlands from July 2006 to January 2008. We performed tests, including patient history, and physical and additional examination, previously selected by an international expert panel and based on an earlier systematic review. Our primary outcome was impact of dizziness on everyday life measured with the Dutch validated version of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI). After a bootstrap procedure (1500x) we investigated predictability of DHI-scores with stepwise backward multiple linear and logistic regressions. RESULTS: DHI-scores varied from 0 to 88 (maximum score: 100) and 60% of patients experienced moderate or severe impact on everyday life due to dizziness. Indicators for dizziness-related impairment were: onset of dizziness 6 months ago or more (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.7-4.7), frequency of dizziness at least daily (OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.0-5.4), duration of dizziness episode one minute or less (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.5-3.9), presence of anxiety and/or depressive disorder (OR 4.4, 95% CI 2.2-8.8), use of sedative drugs (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3-3.8) , and impaired functional mobility (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.7-4.2). For this model with only 6 indicators the AUC was .80 (95% CI .76-.84). CONCLUSIONS: Dizziness-related impairment in older primary care patients is considerable (60%). With six simple indicators it is possible to identify which patients suffer the most from their dizziness without exactly knowing the cause(s) of their dizziness. Influencing these indicators, if possible, may lead to functional improvement and this might be effective in patients with moderate or severe impact of dizziness on their daily lives.
| S-EPMC3142198 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAssociations between dizziness-related handicap and a variety of self-reported measures have been reported. However, research regarding associations between dizziness-related handicap and aspects of functioning that includes both physical tests and self-reported measures is scarce.ObjectiveThe purpose of the study was to describe the variations in signs and symptoms in people with persistent dizziness using physical tests and self-reported outcomes across three severity levels of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) and investigate their associations with the DHI.MethodParticipants with persistent dizziness (n = 107) were included in this cross-sectional study. The participants underwent (1) physical tests (gait tests, grip strength, body flexibility, and movement-induced dizziness) and completed questionnaires regarding (2) psychological measures (Mobility Inventory of Agoraphobia, Body Sensation Questionnaire, Agoraphobic Cognitions Questionnaire, and Hospital Depression and Anxiety Questionnaire), and (3) fatigue, dizziness severity, and quality of life (Chalders Fatigue Scale, Vertigo Symptom Scale-Short Form, and EQ visual analog scale), in addition to the DHI. Data were presented by descriptive statistics for three DHI severity levels (mild, moderate, and severe). A multiple linear backward regression analysis was conducted for each group of measures in relation to the DHI total score, with additional analyses adjusting for age and sex. Based on these results, significant associations were tested in a final regression model.ResultsWith increasing severity levels of DHI, the participants demonstrated worse performance on most of the physical tests (preferred and fast gait velocity, dizziness intensity after head movements), presented with worse scores on the self-reported measures (avoidance behavior, fear of bodily sensation, fear of fear itself, psychological distress, fatigue, dizziness severity, quality of life). After adjusting for age and sex, significant associations were found between total DHI and avoidance behavior, psychological distress, dizziness severity, and quality of life, but not with any of the physical tests, explaining almost 56% of the variance of the DHI total score.ConclusionThere was a trend toward worse scores on physical tests and self-reported measurements with increasing DHI severity level. The DHI seems to be a valuable tool in relation to several self-reported outcomes; however, several signs and symptoms may not be detected by the DHI, and thus, a combination of outcomes should be utilized when examining patients with persistent dizziness.
| S-EPMC9334819 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDizziness is a common reason for seeking care, and frequently affects older persons. The aims were to determine the prevalence of dizziness in older persons at high risk of hospitalization, to compare subjects with and without dizziness, and to examine the effects on dizziness of a proactive primary care intervention in comparison with conventional care after one year.MethodsData were derived from a prospective multicentre clinical trial in persons aged 75 and older and at high risk of hospitalization. A baseline questionnaire included demographic data, use of aids, questions about everyday physical activity and exercise, pain (intensity, frequency, and duration), activities of daily living measured using the ADL Staircase, and health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-3L vertical visual analogue scale. Both at baseline and after one year, subjects were asked about dizziness, and those with dizziness answered the Dizziness Handicap Inventory - Screening version. Subjects in the intervention group were evaluated by a primary care team and when needed proactive care plans were established. Groups were compared using the Mann Whitney U-test or chi-squared test.ResultsOf the 779 subjects, 493 (63%) experienced dizziness. Persons with dizziness differed regarding sex, homecare service, aids, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, physical activity, and pain. The intervention did not significantly reduce the level of dizziness.ConclusionsDizziness is common in vulnerable older persons, and individuals with dizziness differ in several respects. Further studies are needed employing more dizziness-specific assessment and individually tailored interventions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov 170608, ID: NCT03180606.
| S-EPMC8996541 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe diagnostic workup and treatment decisions for vertigo or dizziness in primary care can be challenging due to the broad range of possible causes and limited time and expertise of physicians. This can lead to delays in treatment and unnecessary tests. We aimed to identify the unmet needs of primary care physicians (PCPs) and strategies to improve care for dizzy patients.Materials and methodsAn online survey was conducted among board-certified PCPs in Switzerland to explore needs in caring for dizzy patients and potential educational approaches.ResultsBased on responses from 152 participating PCPs, satisfaction and confidence were higher in diagnosing (82%) and treating (76%) acute dizziness compared to episodic/chronic cases (63 and 59%, respectively). Younger PCPs had lower diagnostic yield and confidence. Areas for improvement in specialist interactions included communication between physicians (23%/36%; always/often true), shorter waiting times for consultations (19%/40%), more detailed feedback (36%/35%), and consistent patient back referrals (31%/30%). PCPs expressed interest in hands-on courses, workshops, practical guidelines, web-based algorithms, and digital tools such as printed dizzy diaries and apps for follow-up.ConclusionEnhanced dialog between PCPs and specialists is crucial to address the most common unmet needs. Reducing waiting times for referrals and providing clear instructions to specialists for triage are essential. The findings from this survey will guide the development of tools to improve the diagnosis and treatment of dizzy patients. Younger PCPs, who face higher diagnostic uncertainty, should be prioritized for educational approaches such as hands-on courses, workshops, and practical recommendations.
| S-EPMC10495563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDizziness is common in older people. Physicians are often unable to identify a specific cause for dizziness in older people, even after an extensive diagnostic work-up. A prognosis-oriented approach, i.e. treating modifiable risk factors for an unfavourable course of dizziness, may reduce dizziness-related impairment in older people in primary care.DesignCluster randomized controlled trial.Setting45 primary care practices in The Netherlands.Participants168 participants aged ?65y who consulted their general practitioner for dizziness and experienced significant dizziness-related impairment (Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) ?30). Participants were part of to the intervention group (n = 83) or control group (n = 85), depending on whether they were enlisted in an intervention practice or in a control practice.InterventionsThe multifactorial intervention consisted of: medication adjustment in case of ?3 prescribed fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) and/or stepped mental health care in case of anxiety disorder and/or depression and/or exercise therapy in case of impaired functional mobility. The intervention was compared to usual care.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was dizziness-related impairment. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (QoL), dizziness frequency, fall frequency, anxiety and depression, use of FRIDs.ResultsIntention-to-treat analysis showed no significant intervention effect on dizziness-related impairment (DHI score difference -0.69 [95% CI -5.66;4.28]; p = 0.79). The intervention proved effective in reducing the number of FRIDs (FRID difference -0.48 [95% CI -0.89;-0.06]; p = 0.02). No significant intervention effects were found on other secondary outcomes. The uptake of and adherence to the interventions was significantly lower in patients eligible for ?2 interventions compared to patients eligible for one intervention (p<0.001).ConclusionsThe multifactorial intervention for dizziness in older patients showed no significant intervention effect on most outcomes and adherence to the multifactorial intervention was low. Although multifactorial treatment for older dizzy people seems promising in theory, we question its feasibility in daily practice. Future research could focus on a sequential treatment for dizziness, e.g. measuring effectiveness of various evidence-based therapies in a stepwise approach.
| S-EPMC6178383 | biostudies-literature