How critical is timing for the diagnosis of influenza in general practice?

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: The diagnostic significance of clinical symptoms/signs of influenza has mainly been assessed in the context of controlled studies with stringent inclusion criteria. There was a need to extend the evaluation of these predictors not only in the context of general practice but also according to the duration of symptoms and to the dynamics of the epidemic. PRINCIPLES: A prospective study conducted in the Medical Outpatient Clinic in the winter season 1999-2000. Patients with influenza-like syndrome were included, as long as the primary care physician envisaged the diagnosis of influenza. The physician administered a questionnaire, a throat swab was performed and a culture acquired to document the diagnosis of influenza. RESULTS: 201 patients were included in the study. 52% were culture positive for influenza. By univariate analysis, temperature >37.8 degrees C (OR 4.2; 95% CI 2.3-7.7), duration of symptoms <48 hours (OR 3.2; 1.8-5.7), cough (OR 3.2; 1-10.4) and myalgia (OR 2.8; 1.0-7.5) were associated with a diagnosis of influenza. In a multivariable logistic analysis, the best model predicting influenza was the association of a duration of symptom <48 hours, medical attendance at the beginning of the epidemic (weeks 49-50), fever >37.8 and cough, with a sensitivity of 79%, specificity of 69%, positive predictive value of 67%, negative predictive value of 73% and an area under the ROC curve of 0.74. CONCLUSIONS: Besides relevant symptoms and signs, the physician should also consider the duration of symptoms and the epidemiological context (start, peak or end of the epidemic) in his appraisal, since both parameters considerably modify the value of the clinical predictors when assessing the probability of a patient having influenza.

Authorship in scientific publications: analysis and recommendations.

In 2008, a Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences working group chaired by Professor Emilio Bossi issued a "Memorandum on scientific integrity and the handling of misconduct in the scientific context", together with a paper setting out principles and procedures concerning integrity in scientific research. In the Memorandum, unjustified claims of authorship in scientific publications are referred to as a form of scientific misconduct - a view widely shared in other countries. In the Principles and Procedures, the main criteria for legitimate authorship are specified, as well as the associated responsibilities. It is in fact not uncommon for disputes about authorship to arise with regard to publications in fields where research is generally conducted by teams rather than individuals. Such disputes may concern not only the question who is or is not to be listed as an author but also, frequently, the precise sequence of names, if the list is to reflect the various authors' roles and contributions. Subjective assessments of the contributions made by the individual members of a research group may differ substantially. As scientific collaboration - often across national boundaries - is now increasingly common, ensuring appropriate recognition of all parties is a complex matter and, where disagreements arise, it may not be easy to reach a consensus. In addition, customs have changed over the past few decades; for example, the practice of granting "honorary" authorship to an eminent researcher - formerly not unusual - is no longer considered acceptable. It should be borne in mind that the publications list has become by far the most important indicator of a researcher's scientific performance; for this reason, appropriate authorship credit has become a decisive factor in the careers of young researchers, and it needs to be managed and protected accordingly. At the international and national level, certain practices have therefore developed concerning the listing of authors and the obligations of authorship. The Scientific Integrity Committee of the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences has collated the relevant principles and regulations and formulated recommendations for authorship in scientific publications. These should help to prevent authorship disputes and offer guidance in the event of conflicts.