Whilst professional bodies such as the Royal College and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have well-established standards for audit of management for most gynaecology disorders, such standards for premenstrual disorders (PMDs) have yet to be developed. The International Society of Premenstrual Disorders (ISPMD) has already published three consensus papers on PMDs covering areas that include definition, classification/quantification, clinical trial design and management (American College Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2011; Brown et al. in Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD001396, 2009; Dickerson et al. in Am Fam Physician 67(8):1743-1752, 2003). In this fourth consensus of ISPMD, we aim to create a set of auditable standards for the clinical management of PMDs. All members of the original ISPMD consensus group were invited to submit one or more auditable standards to be eligible in the inclusion of the consensus. Ninety-five percent of members (18/19) responded with at least one auditable standard. A total of 66 auditable standards were received, which were returned to all group members who then ranked the standards in order of priority, before the results were collated. Proposed standards related to the diagnosis of PMDs identified the importance of obtaining an accurate history, that a symptom diary should be kept for 2 months prior to diagnosis and that symptom reporting demonstrates symptoms in the premenstrual phase of the menstrual cycle and relieved by menstruation. Regarding treatment, the most important standards were the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as a first line treatment, an evidence-based approach to treatment and that SSRI side effects are properly explained to patients. A set of comprehensive standards to be used in the diagnosis and treatment of PMD has been established, for which PMD management can be audited against for standardised and improved care.

BackgroundSeveral studies have demonstrated that array comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) for genome-wide imbalance provides a substantial increase in diagnostic yield for patients traditionally referred for karyotyping by G-banded chromosome analysis. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of and strategies for, the use of array CGH in place of karyotyping for genome imbalance, and to report on the results of the implementation of this approach.ResultsFollowing a validation period, an oligoarray platform was chosen. In order to minimise costs and increase efficiency, a patient/patient hybridisation strategy was used, and analysis criteria were set to optimise detection of pathogenic imbalance. A customised database application with direct links to a number of online resources was developed to allow efficient management and tracking of patient samples and facilitate interpretation of results. Following introduction into our routine diagnostic service for patients with suspected genome imbalance, array CGH as a follow-on test for patients with normal karyotypes (n = 1245) and as a first-line test (n = 1169) gave imbalance detection rates of 26% and 22% respectively (excluding common, benign variants). At least 89% of the abnormalities detected by first line testing would not have been detected by standard karyotype analysis. The average reporting time for first-line tests was 25 days from receipt of sample.ConclusionsArray CGH can be used in a diagnostic service setting in place of G-banded chromosome analysis, providing a more comprehensive and objective test for patients with suspected genome imbalance. The increase in consumable costs can be minimised by employing appropriate hybridisation strategies; the use of robotics and a customised database application to process multiple samples reduces staffing costs and streamlines analysis, interpretation and reporting of results. Array CGH provides a substantially higher diagnostic yield than G-banded chromosome analysis, thereby alleviating the burden of further clinical investigations.

Key content An overview of current information available on premenstrual syndrome (PMS), which is in accordance with the new RCOG Green‐top Guideline. Definition of PMS and explanation about the different types of premenstrual disorders. How to accurately diagnose PMS. Discussion about various treatment options available in accordance with the current literature. Learning objectives Develop an understanding of the pathophysiology behind PMS. How to diagnose PMS accurately and understand the different classifications of PMS. How to treat PMS, including the different treatment options available and discussion about side effects and benefits. Ethical issues Discussion about the long‐term risks of GnRH analogue use, and the impact of long‐term estrogen deficiency following a bilateral salpingoophorectomy. Misdiagnosed PMS in patients with underlying psychiatric and medical conditions.

This education evaluation indicates that the patients we talked with in the UK counties of Shropshire and Staffordshire overwhelmingly sought doctors with good personal qualities and communication skills. Of the attributes recorded, 92 per cent were related to such qualities, with only 8 per cent emphasising knowledge and intelligence, and with no comments on manual skills. The results support the current emphasis in UK medical schools on communication skills and professionalism, and the development of personal qualities through the promotion of humanities teaching. The modern medical school curriculum highlights the importance of good communication skills.

A chorion villus sample (CVS) biopsied at 11 weeks' gestation for raised nuchal translucency, revealed monosomy X (presumptive 45,X karyotype) by QF-PCR for rapid aneuploidy testing for chromosomes 13, 18, 21, X and Y. Long-term culture gave the karyotype: 47,XY,+ 21[66]/49,XYY,+ 21,+ 21 [22]. This discrepancy prompted redigestion of the combined residual villus fragments from the original QF-PCR assay. The repeat QF-PCR assay identified the presence of trisomy 21 and a Y chromosome consistent with a 47,XY,+ 21 karyotype. A double non-disjunction event early in embryogenesis in a 47,XY,+ 21 conceptus with subsequent cell lineage compartmentalisation of the three observed cell lines (45,X; 47,XY,+ 21 and 49,XYY,+ 21,+ 21) would account for these results. This is the first reported case to describe complete discrepancy at diagnosis between abnormal karyotypes detected by QF-PCR rapid aneuploidy testing and a cultured karyotype in the same CVS.