Back, chest and abdominal pain: How good are spinal signs at identifying musculoskeletal causes of back, chest or abdominal pain?

Background: Spinal signs found in association with atypical chest and abdominal pain may suggest the pain is referred from the thoracic spine. However, the prevalence of such signs in these conditions has rarely been compared with that in those without pain. In this study, the prevalence of spinal signs and dysfunction in patients with back, chest and abdominal pain is compared with that in pain free controls. The aim of the study is to determine the significance of spinal findings in patients with such pain. Methods: A general practitioner blinded to the patients' histories performed a cervical and thoracic spinal examination on general practice patients with back, chest and/or abdominal pain and on controls without pain. Thoracic intervertebral dysfunction was diagnosed on the basis of movement and palpation findings. Results: Seventy three study patients plus 24 controls, were examined. For cervical spinal signs, pain in the back, chest and/or abdomen was associated with pain with active movements and overpressure at end range and with loss of movement range. For thoracic spinal signs, this association held for pain with active movements and overpressure, but not with loss of movement range. The prevalence of thoracic intervertebral dysfunction was 25.0% in controls, 65.5% with chest/abdominal pain, 72.0% with back pain and 79.0% with back pain with chest/abdominal pain. This prevalence was higher with chest pain than with abdominal pain. Conclusions: The results show an association, but not a causal link between thoracic intervertebral dysfunction and atypical chest/abdominal pain. A spinal examination should be performed routinely assessing these conditions. The minimum examination for the detection of intervertebral dysfunction is testing for pain with spinal movements and palpation for tenderness. The interpretation of positive signs requires knowledge of their prevalence in pain free controls and in patients with visceral disease

Detection of swallowing sounds: Methodology revisited

Cervical auscultation is in the process of gaining clinical credibility. In order for it to be accepted by the clinical community, the procedure and equipment used must first be standardized. Takahashi et al. [Dysphagia 9:54-62, 1994] attempted to provide benchmark methodology for administering cervical auscultation. They provided information about the acoustic detector unit best suited to picking up swallowing sounds and the best cervical site to place it. The current investigation provides contrasting results to Takahashi et al. with respect to the best type of acoustic detector unit to use for detecting swallowing sounds. Our study advocates an electret microphone as opposed to an accelerometer for recording swallowing sounds. However, we agree on the optimal placement site. We conclude that cervical auscultation is within reach of the average dysphagia clinic.

Carbamazepine augmentation for schizophrenia: How good is the evidence?

Background: Augmentation strategies in schizophrenia treatment remain an important issue because despite the introduction of several new antipsychotics, many patients remain treatment resistant. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of one frequently used adjunctive compound: carbamazepine. Data sources and study selection: Randomized controlled trials comparing carbamazopine (as a sole or as an adjunctive compound) with placebo or no intervention in participants with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder were searched for by accessing 7 electronic databases, cross-referencing publications cited in pertinent studies, and contacting drug companies that manufacture carbamazepine. Method: The identified studies were independently inspected and their quality assessed by 2 reviewers, Because the study results were generally incompletely reported, original patient data were requested from the authors; data were received for 8 of the 10 randomized controlled trials included in the present analysis, allowing for a reanalysis of the primary data. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio and continuous data were analyzed using standardized mean differences, both specified with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Ten studies (total N = 283 subjects) were included. Carbamazepine was not effective in preventing relapse in the only randomized controlled trial that compared carbamazepine monotherapy with placebo. Carbamazepine tended to be less effective than perphenazine in the only trial comparing carbamazepine with an antipsychotic. Although there was a trend indicating a benefit from carbamazepine as an adjunct to antipsychotics, this trend did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: At present, this augmentation strategy cannot be recommended for routine use. The most promising targets for future trials are patients with excitement, aggression, and schizoaffective disorder bipolar type.