The authors performed a systematic review to summarize the epidemiologic evidence on the association between use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and the risk of dementia. A total of 25 case-control and cohort studies that reported an odds ratio/relative risk were included. Study-specific log relative risks were weighted by the inverse of their variances to obtain pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals. The authors divided the reports into studies with prevalent dementia cases, studies with incident dementia cases, and studies where cognitive decline was used as the clinical endpoint. The pooled relative risks of the three groups of studies were 0.51 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.37, 0.70), 0.79 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.92), and 1.23 (95% CI: 0.70, 2.31), respectively. Within these subgroups, heterogeneity was present only in the studies with prevalent cases (p = 0.001). Because the benefit of NSAIDs in preventing dementia or cognitive impairment was 50% in studies with prevalent dementia cases, declined to 20% in studies with incident dementia cases, and was absent in studies where cognitive decline was used as the endpoint, the authors conclude that most of the reported beneficial effects of NSAIDs may result from various forms of bias: recall bias, prescription bias, and publication bias.

No abstract

Background To date, the outcomes of second opinions in internal medicine in terms of diagnostic yield and patient benefit have not been studied extensively. This retrospective study explores the outcomes of second opinions at a general internal medicine outpatient clinic in an academic hospital. Methods A register of all patients referred to the general internal medicine outpatient clinic of the University Medical Center in Utrecht for a second opinion, was kept. All 173 patients referred between June 2016 and August 2018 were selected. Case records were analyzed for patient characteristics, referring doctor, chief complaint, performed investigations, follow-up time and, established diagnosis, additional diagnoses, initiated treatment and reported benefit. Results A new diagnosis was established in 13% of all patients. A new treatment was initiated in 56% of all patients: 91% and 51% of patients with and without a new diagnosis respectively (p < 0.001). Of all patients, 19% received an effective treatment (52% vs 14% of patients with vs without a new diagnosis, p < 0.001). Regardless of treatment, resolution or improvement of the chief complaint was achieved in 28% of all patients (52% vs 25% of patients with vs without a new diagnosis, p = 0.006). Regarding diagnostics, 23-33% of radiology, endoscopy and pathology tests performed during second opinion were a repetition of previously conducted investigations. Conventional blood tests were a repetition in 89% of cases. Median time to diagnosis was 64 days (IQR: 25-128 days) and median time to discharge was 75 days (IQR: 31-144 days). Conclusion Second opinions in general internal medicine lead to the establishment of a new diagnosis in a small proportion of patients. However, the value of second opinions may not be limited

Background In several settings, a shorter time to diagnosis has been shown to lead to improved clinical outcomes. The implementation of a rapid laboratory testing allows for a pre-visit testing in the outpatient clinic, meaning that test results are available during the first outpatient visit. Objective To determine whether the pre-visit laboratory testing leads to a shorter time to diagnosis in the general internal medicine outpatient clinic. Design An “on-off” trial, allocating subjects to one of two treatment arms in consecutive alternating blocks. Participants All new referrals to the internal medicine outpatient clinic of a university hospital were included, excluding second opinions. A total of 595 patients were eligible; one person declined to participate, leaving data from 594 patients for analysis. Intervention In the intervention group, patients had a standardized pre-visit laboratory testing before the first visit. Main Measures The primary outcome was the time to diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were the correctness of the preliminary diagnosis on the first day, health care utilization, and patient and physician satisfaction. Key Results There was no difference in time to diagnosis between the two groups (median 35 days vs 35 days; hazard ratio 1.03 [0.87–1.22]; p = .71). The pre-visit testing group had higher proportions of both correct preliminary diagnoses on day 1 (24% vs 14%; p = .003) and diagnostic workups being completed on day 1 (10% vs 3%; p < .001). The intervention group had more laboratory tests done (50.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 39.0–69.0] vs 43.0 [IQR 31.0–68.5]; p < .001). Otherwise, there were no differences between the groups. Conclusions Pre-visit testing did not lead to a shorter overall time to diagnosis. However, a greater proportion of patients had a correct diagnosis on the first day. Further studies should focus on customizing pre-visit laboratory panels, to improve their efficacy. Trial Registration NL5009