Dataset Information

US in the evaluation of abdominal pain in a department of internal medicine.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

US (US) examination of the abdomen has acquired a growing role in the investigation of abdominal pain; however its role in the diagnosis of some important causes of abdominal pain is still under investigation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of US of the abdomen in the diagnosis of abdominal pain in patients referred to a department of internal medicine.

Materials and methods

A retrospective analysis was carried out on 248 US examinations performed in our department due to abdominal pain. For each examination the data written on the request form were registered as well as US findings which could be correlated with abdominal pain.

Results

In 105 patients (42%), US examination of the abdomen resulted in a relevant clinical finding and was thus considered positive. A high percentage of patients were elderly (>65 years; 52%) and very elderly (>80 years; 24%); these patients showed a significantly higher percentage of positive US scans. The proportion of positive scans was not significantly different between localized and non-localized pain. Specific pain location was associated with US findings such as hepatic masses, ovarian masses and renal stones, whereas non-localized pain was associated with abdominal free fluid and fluid-distended bowel loops.

Discussion

A high percentage of US examinations identified conditions that could possibly cause abdominal pain. Diagnostic yield of abdominal US was higher in elderly and very elderly patients. When a US examination is requested, it should always be evaluated within the clinical context. The physician should be aware of the great value of abdominal US in the diagnosis of the various causes of abdominal pain, but also of its possible limitations.

SUBMITTER: Simoni F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3558242 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

US in the evaluation of abdominal pain in a department of internal medicine.

Simoni F F Vitturi N N Tagliente M M Soattin M M Realdi G G

Journal of ultrasound 20110901 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>US (US) examination of the abdomen has acquired a growing role in the investigation of abdominal pain; however its role in the diagnosis of some important causes of abdominal pain is still under investigation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of US of the abdomen in the diagnosis of abdominal pain in patients referred to a department of internal medicine.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A retrospective analysis was carried out on 248 US examinations performed in o ...[more]

PMID: 23396919

Similar Datasets

Project description:Uninsured and insured but out-of-network emergency department (ED) patients are often billed hospital chargemaster prices, which exceed amounts typically paid by insurers.To examine the variation in excess charges for services provided by emergency medicine and internal medicine physicians.Retrospective analysis was conducted of professional fee payment claims made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for all services provided to Medicare Part B fee-for-service beneficiaries in calendar year 2013. Data analysis was conducted from January 1 to July 31, 2016.Markup ratios for ED and internal medicine professional services, defined as the charges submitted by the hospital divided by the Medicare allowable amount.Our analysis included 12?337 emergency medicine physicians from 2707 hospitals and 57?607 internal medicine physicians from 3669 hospitals in all 50 states. Services provided by emergency medicine physicians had an overall markup ratio of 4.4 (340% excess charges), which was greater than the markup ratio of 2.1 (110% excess charges) for all services performed by internal medicine physicians. Markup ratios for all ED services ranged by hospital from 1.0 to 12.6 (median, 4.2; interquartile range [IQR], 3.3-5.8); markup ratios for all internal medicine services ranged by hospital from 1.0 to 14.1 (median, 2.0; IQR, 1.7-2.5). The median markup ratio by hospital for ED evaluation and management procedure codes varied between 4.0 and 5.0. Among the most common ED services, laceration repair had the highest median markup ratio (7.0); emergency medicine physician review of a head computed tomographic scan had the greatest interhospital variation (range, 1.6-27.7). Across hospitals, markups in the ED were often substantially higher than those in the internal medicine department for the same services. Higher ED markup ratios were associated with hospital for-profit ownership (median, 5.7; IQR, 4.0-7.1), a greater percentage of uninsured patients seen (median, 5.0; IQR, 3.5-6.7 for ?20% uninsured), and location (median, 5.3; IQR, 3.8-6.8 for the southeastern United States).Across hospitals, there is wide variation in excess charges on ED services, which are often priced higher than internal medicine services. Our results inform policy efforts to protect uninsured and out-of-network patients from highly variable pricing.

Project description:BackgroundEarly screening and accurately identifying Acute Appendicitis (AA) among patients with undifferentiated symptoms associated with appendicitis during their emergency visit will improve patient safety and health care quality. The aim of the study was to compare models that predict AA among patients with undifferentiated symptoms at emergency visits using both structured data and free-text data from a national survey.MethodsWe performed a secondary data analysis on the 2005-2017 United States National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) data to estimate the association between emergency department (ED) patients with the diagnosis of AA, and the demographic and clinical factors present at ED visits during a patient's ED stay. We used binary logistic regression (LR) and random forest (RF) models incorporating natural language processing (NLP) to predict AA diagnosis among patients with undifferentiated symptoms.ResultsAmong the 40,441 ED patients with assigned International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes of AA and appendicitis-related symptoms between 2005 and 2017, 655 adults (2.3%) and 256 children (2.2%) had AA. For the LR model identifying AA diagnosis among adult ED patients, the c-statistic was 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69-0.75) for structured variables only, 0.72 (95% CI: 0.69-0.75) for unstructured variables only, and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.76-0.80) when including both structured and unstructured variables. For the LR model identifying AA diagnosis among pediatric ED patients, the c-statistic was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79-0.89) for including structured variables only, 0.78 (95% CI: 0.72-0.84) for unstructured variables, and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83-0.91) when including both structured and unstructured variables. The RF method showed similar c-statistic to the corresponding LR model.ConclusionsWe developed predictive models that can predict the AA diagnosis for adult and pediatric ED patients, and the predictive accuracy was improved with the inclusion of NLP elements and approaches.

Project description:STUDY OBJECTIVE:We compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine with that of hydromorphone for the treatment of acute abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). METHODS:This was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial conducted in 2 EDs in the Bronx, NY. Adults weighing 60 to 120 kg were randomized to receive 120 mg of intravenous lidocaine or 1 mg of intravenous hydromorphone. Thirty minutes after administration of the first dose of the study drug, participants were asked whether they needed a second dose of the investigational medication to which they were randomized. Patients were also stratified according to clinical suspicion of nephrolithiasis. The primary outcome was improvement in pain scores of 0 to 10 between baseline and 90 minutes. An important secondary outcome was need for "off-protocol" parenteral analgesics, including opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. RESULTS:We enrolled 154 patients, of whom 77 received lidocaine and 77 received hydromorphone. By 90 minutes, patients randomized to lidocaine improved by a mean of 3.8 points on the 0-to-10 scale, whereas those randomized to hydromorphone improved by a mean of 5.0 points (mean difference 1.2; 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.2). Need for off-protocol "rescue" analgesics occurred for 39 of 77 lidocaine patients (51%) and 20 of 77 hydromorphone patients (26%) (difference 25%; 95% confidence interval 10% to 40%). Adverse events were comparable between groups. Among the subset of 22 patients with nephrolithiasis, lidocaine patients reported a mean improvement of 3.4 points on the pain scale, whereas hydromorphone patients reported a mean improvement of 6.4 points (mean difference 3.0; 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 5.5). CONCLUSION:Intravenous hydromorphone was superior to intravenous lidocaine both for general abdominal pain and a subset of patients with nephrolithiasis. A majority of patients randomly allocated to lidocaine required additional analgesics.

Dataset Information

US in the evaluation of abdominal pain in a department of internal medicine.

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

US in the evaluation of abdominal pain in a department of internal medicine.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure