SUMMARYObjectivesLower back pain is one of the most common complaints among the general population and among health professionals. Multiple workplace-related risk factors may contribute to back pain among physicians. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of lower back pain among medical residents of different medical specialties and to evaluate the relevant risk factors.MethodsA Dutch Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (DMQ) was completed by 125 medical residents. Part I concerned general demographic information, part II evaluated workplace-specific factors, and part III assessed the individual characteristics of lower back pain.ResultsThe overall prevalence of lower back pain among residents was 56.8%, with 45.1% of men and 76.5% of women reporting lower back pain. A total of 94.4% of affected individuals believed that their lower back pain was related to their current job, and 72.6% claimed that the onset of lower back pain occurred after beginning medical work. Statistical analysis revealed a significant correlation between lower back pain and certain risk factors, such as working in the same position for long periods, repetitive movement (bending, twisting) of the lumbar region, working in uncomfortable postures, stress, walking, and standing for long periods. However, no significant relationship was found between lower back pain and heavy lifting, smoking, or prolonged sitting. The role of exercise as a protective factor in reducing the incidence of lower back pain was supported by the statistical analysis.ConclusionsThe prevalence of lower back pain among residents is high and is associated with a number of workplace-related risk factors.
Background:Bleeding and trapped air in the pleural space are called hemothorax and pneumothorax, respectively. In cases where there are delays in diagnosis and treatment, the mortality rates due to hemopneumothorax can be significant. Hemopneumothorax is characterized by decreased lung sounds or chest percussion and subcutaneous emphysema. Diagnosis of pneumothorax and hemothorax can be achieved by portable chest X-ray (CXR), computed tomography (CT) scan, or ultrasonography. Portable CXR and CT-scans have their individual drawbacks. CXR creates a high percentage of false negative results, and a CT-scan is time consuming and less cost-effective; in addition, both modalities expose patients to radiation. Therefore, the introduction of ultrasonography as an easily available and highly accurate diagnostic modality has particular importance.Objectives:The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of pneumothorax and hemothorax in comparison with the other two methods, namely portable CXR and CT-scan.Patients and Methods:Patients (163) with multiple trauma who were suspected of having chest injuries, and who had indications for a chest CT-scan according to ATLS algorithms, were included in the study. All patients underwent portable CXR, CT-scan, and ultrasonography.Results:In total, 163 patients were included in this study; 29 patients had a pneumothorax, 24 patients had a hemothorax, and 23 patients had a hemopneumothorax confirmed. The study revealed that ultrasonography had a sensitivity of 96.15%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 98%, in the diagnosis of pneumothorax. The sensitivity for ultrasonography in the diagnosis of a hemothorax was 82.97%, with a specificity of 98.05%, a positive predictive value of 90%, and a negative predictive value of 92.66%. Portable CXR for pneumothorax detection had a sensitivity of 34.61%, a specificity of 97.95%, a positive predictive value of 90%, and a negative predictive value of 73.84%. In the detection of hemothorax, CXR had a sensitivity of 25.53%, a specificity of 95.14%, a positive predictive value of 70.58%, and a negative predictive value of 73.68%.Conclusions:Ultrasonography sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of hemopneumothorax was high. The sensitivity of portable CXR was low despite its high specificity for the detection of hemothorax and pneumothorax.
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.