Clinicians rely on knowledge about the clinical manifestations of disease to make clinical diagnoses. Before using research on the frequency of clinical features found in patients with a disease, clinicians should appraise the evidence for its validity, results, and applicability. For validity, 4 issues are important-how the diagnoses were verified, how the study sample relates to all patients with the disease, how the clinical findings were sought, and how the clinical findings were characterized. Ideally, investigators will verify the presence of disease in study patients using credible criteria that are independent of the clinical manifestations under study. Also, ideally the study patients will represent the full spectrum of the disease, undergo a thorough and consistent search for clinical findings, and these findings will be well characterized in nature and timing. The main results of these studies are expressed as the number and percentages of patients with each manifestation. Confidence intervals can describe the precision of these frequencies. Most clinical findings occur with only intermediate frequency, and since these frequencies are equivalent to diagnostic sensitivities, this means that the absence of a single finding is rarely powerful enough to exclude the disease. Before acting on the evidence, clinicians should consider whether it applies to their own patients and whether it has been superseded by new developments. Detailed knowledge of the clinical manifestations of disease should increase clinicians' ability to raise diagnostic hypotheses, select differential diagnoses, and verify final diagnoses. JAMA. 2000;284:869-875

No abstract

No abstract

Postmenopausal women with bothersome vasomotor symptoms (VMS) often seek alternatives to hormone-based treatment due to medication risks or personal preference. We sought to identify the effects of meditation, mindfulness, hypnosis and relaxation on VMS and health-related quality of life in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. To do this, we conducted an umbrella review supplemented by new randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) published since the most recent good-quality systematic review for eligible interventions. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Databases. We identified five systematic reviews and six new RCTs that met eligibility criteria. In a new meta-analysis examining four RCTs comparing paced respiration with a control group, we found that paced respiration is not associated with a statistically significant decrease in VMS frequency (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.73 to 0.82, I=56.6%, three trials) or severity (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.80; I=65.1%, three trials). There was not sufficient new information to conduct meta-analyses that examined the effect of mindfulness or hypnosis on our outcomes of interest. No effect on VMS or quality of life was found between various relaxation or mindfulness interventions.