PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-3 (3)
 

Clipboard (0)
None
Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Clinical evaluation of iron treatment efficiency among non-anemic but iron-deficient female blood donors: a randomized controlled trial 
BMC Medicine  2012;10:8.
Background
Iron deficiency without anemia is related to adverse symptoms that can be relieved by supplementation. Since a blood donation can induce such an iron deficiency, we investigated the clinical impact of iron treatment after a blood donation.
Methods
One week after donation, we randomly assigned 154 female donors with iron deficiency without anemia, aged below 50 years, to a four-week oral treatment of ferrous sulfate versus a placebo. The main outcome was the change in the level of fatigue before and after the intervention. Aerobic capacity, mood disorder, quality of life, compliance and adverse events were also evaluated. Hemoglobin and ferritin were used as biological markers.
Results
The effect of the treatment from baseline to four weeks of iron treatment was an increase in hemoglobin and ferritin levels to 5.2 g/L (P < 0.01) and 14.8 ng/mL (P < 0.01), respectively. No significant clinical effect was observed for fatigue (-0.15 points, 95% confidence interval -0.9 points to 0.6 points, P = 0.697) or for other outcomes. Compliance and interruption for side effects was similar in both groups. Additionally, blood donation did not induce overt symptoms of fatigue in spite of the significant biological changes it produces.
Conclusions
These data are valuable as they enable us to conclude that donors with iron deficiency without anemia after a blood donation would not clinically benefit from iron supplementation.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00981877
doi:10.1186/1741-7015-10-8
PMCID: PMC3292842  PMID: 22272750
2.  The 'help' question doesn't help when screening for major depression: external validation of the three-question screening test for primary care patients managed for physical complaints 
BMC Medicine  2011;9:114.
Background
Major depression, although frequent in primary care, is commonly hidden behind multiple physical complaints that are often the first and only reason for patient consultation. Major depression can be screened by two validated questions that are easier to use in primary care than the full Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV) criteria. A third question, called the 'help' question, improves the specificity without apparently decreasing the sensitivity of this screening procedure. We validated the abbreviated screening procedure for major depression with and without the 'help' question in primary care patients managed for a physical complaint.
Methods
This diagnostic accuracy study used data from the SODA (for 'SOmatisation Depression Anxiety') cohort study conducted by 24 general practitioners (GPs) in western Switzerland that included patients over 18 years of age with at least a single physical complaint at index consultation. Major depression was identified with the full Patient Health Questionnaire. GPs were asked to screen patients for major depression with the three screening questions 1 year after inclusion.
Results
Of 937 patients with at least a single physical complaint, 751 were eligible 1 year after index consultation. Major depression was diagnosed in 69/724 (9.5%) patients. The sensitivity and specificity of the two-question method alone were 91.3% (95% CI 81.4 to 96.4) and 65.0% (95% CI 61.2 to 68.6), respectively. Adding the 'help' question decreased the sensitivity (59.4%; 95% CI 47.0 to 70.9) but improved the specificity (88.2%; 95% CI 85.4 to 90.5) of the three-question method.
Conclusions
The use of two screening questions for major depression was associated with high sensitivity and low specificity in primary care patients presenting a physical complaint. Adding the 'help' question improved the specificity but clearly decreased the sensitivity; when using the 'help' question, four out of ten patients with depression will be missed, compared to only one out of ten with the two-question method. Therefore, the 'help' question is not useful as a screening question, but may help discussing management strategies.
doi:10.1186/1741-7015-9-114
PMCID: PMC3213092  PMID: 22005130
3.  Ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care patients with chest pain: a clinical prediction score 
BMC Medicine  2010;8:9.
Background
Chest pain raises concern for the possibility of coronary heart disease. Scoring methods have been developed to identify coronary heart disease in emergency settings, but not in primary care.
Methods
Data were collected from a multicenter Swiss clinical cohort study including 672 consecutive patients with chest pain, who had visited one of 59 family practitioners' offices. Using delayed diagnosis we derived a prediction rule to rule out coronary heart disease by means of a logistic regression model. Known cardiovascular risk factors, pain characteristics, and physical signs associated with coronary heart disease were explored to develop a clinical score. Patients diagnosed with angina or acute myocardial infarction within the year following their initial visit comprised the coronary heart disease group.
Results
The coronary heart disease score was derived from eight variables: age, gender, duration of chest pain from 1 to 60 minutes, substernal chest pain location, pain increasing with exertion, absence of tenderness point at palpation, cardiovascular risks factors, and personal history of cardiovascular disease. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was of 0.95 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.92; 0.97. From this score, 413 patients were considered as low risk for values of percentile 5 of the coronary heart disease patients. Internal validity was confirmed by bootstrapping. External validation using data from a German cohort (Marburg, n = 774) revealed a receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.75 (95% confidence interval, 0.72; 0.81) with a sensitivity of 85.6% and a specificity of 47.2%.
Conclusions
This score, based only on history and physical examination, is a complementary tool for ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care patients complaining of chest pain.
doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-9
PMCID: PMC2832616  PMID: 20092615

Results 1-3 (3)