ContextPheochromocytoma is a rare disease but with high mortality if it is not being diagnosed early. Several biochemical tests with high accuracy have been obtained, but the clinical threshold for request of these tests is not determined clearly.ObjectivesTo determine the Likelihood Ratios of clinical symptoms and signs in diagnosing pheochromocytoma. And also meta-analysis of their sensitivity in this disease.Data sourcesMEDLINE was searched for relevant English-language articles dated 1960 to February 2014. Bibliographies were searched to find additional articles.Study selectionWe included original studies describing the sensitivity and/or likelihood ratios of signs and symptoms in clinical suspicion of pheochromocytoma. Their method of diagnosis should have been based on pathology. We excluded specific subtypes or syndromes related to pheochromocytoma, or specific ages or gender. Also we excluded studies before 1993 (JNC5) which no definition of hypertension was presented. 37 articles were chosen finally.Data extractionTwo authors reviewed data from articles independently and gave discrepancies to third author for decision. The aim was extraction of raw numbers of patients having defined signs or symptoms, and draw 2 × 2 tables if data available. We meta-analyzed sensitivities by Statsdirect and Likelihood Ratios by Meta-disc soft wares. Because our data was heterogeneous based on I2 > 50 % (except negative Likelihood ratio of hypertension), we used random effect model for doing meta-analysis. We checked publication bias by drawing Funnel plot for each sign/symptom, and also Egger test.Data synthesisThe most prevalent signs and symptoms reported were hypertension (pooled sensitivity of 80.7 %), headache (pooled sensitivity of 60.4 %), palpitation (pooled sensitivity of 59.3 %) and diaphoresis (pooled sensitivity of 52.4 %). The definition of orthostatic hypotension was different among studies. The sensitivity was 23–50 %.Paroxysmal hypertension, chest pain, flushing, and weakness were the signs/symptoms which had publication bias based on Funnel plot and Egger test (P value < 0.05). Seven of the articles had control group, and could be used for calculating LR of signs/symptoms. Diaphoresis (LR+ 2.2, LR-0.45), Palpitation (LR+ 1.9, LR-0.52) and headache (LR+ 1.6, LR-0.24) were significant symptoms in clinical diagnosis of pheochromocytoma. Other signs and symptoms had been reported in only one study and could not have been meta-analyzed. Classic triad of headache, palpitation and diaphoresis in hypertensive patients had the LR+ 6.312 (95 % CI 0.217–183.217) and LR-0.139 (95 % CI 0.059–0.331). Surprisingly, hypertension was not important in clinical suspicion of pheochromocytoma, and even normotension increased the probability of the disease.ConclusionsBy available data, there is no single clinical finding that has significant value in diagnosis or excluding pheochromocytoma. Combination of certain symptoms, signs and para-clinical exams is more valuable for physicians. Further studies should be done, to specif...
BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of sublingual buprenorphine with intravenous morphine sulfate for acute renal colic in the emergency department.MethodsIn this double-dummy, randomized controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 to 55 years who had a clinical diagnosis of acute renal colic. Patients received either 2 mg sublingual buprenorphine with an IV placebo, or 0.1 mg/kg IV morphine sulfate with a sublingual placebo. Subjects graded their pain with a standard 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) before medication administration and 20 and 40 minutes after that. The need for rescue analgesia and occurrence of side effects were also recorded in the two groups.ResultsOf 69 patients analyzed, 37 had received buprenorphine, and 32 had taken morphine. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. NRS pain scores were reduced across time by administration of both buprenorphine (from 9.8 to 5.22 and then 2.30) and morphine (from 9.78 to 4.25 and then 1.8), significantly (P <0.0001). The two regimens did not differ significantly for pain reduction (P?=?0.260). Dizziness was more frequently reported by the buprenorphine group (62.1% versus 37.5%, P <0.05) but other adverse effects observed within 40 minutes were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsSublingual buprenorphine (2 mg) is as effective as morphine sulfate (0.1 mg/kg) in acute renal colic pain management.
PurposeTo propose an evidence based diagnostic algorithm using mass characteristics to determine malignancy in patients with adrenal incidentaloma by CTscan.MethodsA systematic review in Medline, Scopus, relevant reference books and desk searching was performed up to January 2016 with relevant reference checking. The summery estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio of different characteristics were calculated in two groups of the articles investigating the cases without previous malignancy and the articles investigating the oncologic cases.ResultsThirty six articles were included in this study. In the first group with no history of malignancy a positive and negative LR of 3.1 and 0.13 in 4 cm threshold and positive and negative LR of 2.85 and 0 in 10HU density were found. In the second group with history of malignancy positive and negative LR of 2.3 and 0.27 in 3 cm threshold and positive and negative LR of 3.6 and 0.08 in 20HU density were resulted.ConclusionThe results retrieved in this study considering the limitations show that adrenal incidentaloma with a size less than 4 cm or a mass larger than 4 cm with density less than 10HU in the first group can be managed with imaging follow up. For masses larger than 4 cm with density more than 10HU another diagnostic procedure should be performed. In the second group an adrenal mass larger than 3 cm or less than 3 cm with density more than 20HU should go under operation. But masses smaller than 3 cm with less than 20HU density can be followed by imaging.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.