A multi-level decomposition of variance in somatic symptom reporting in families with adolescent children

OBJECTIVES: This paper examines four different levels of possible variation in symptom reporting: occasion, day, person and family. DESIGN: In order to rule out effects of retrospection, concurrent symptom reporting was assessed prospectively using a computer-assisted self-report method. METHODS: A decomposition of variance in symptom reporting was conducted using diary data from families with adolescent children. We used palmtop computers to assess concurrent somatic complaints from parents and children six times a day for seven consecutive days. In two separate studies, 314 and 254 participants from 96 and 77 families, respectively, participated. A generalized multilevel linear models approach was used to analyze the data. Symptom reports were modelled using a logistic response function, and random effects were allowed at the family, person and day level, with extra-binomial variation allowed for on the occasion level. RESULTS: Substantial variability was observed at the person, day and occasion level but not at the family level. CONCLUSIONS: To explain symptom reporting in normally healthy individuals, situational as well as person characteristics should be taken into account. Family characteristics, however, would not help to clarify symptom reporting in all family members.

Negative mood, self-focused attention, and the experience of physical symptoms: the joint impact hypothesis

A joint impact hypothesis on symptom experience is introduced that specifies the role of negative mood and self-focus, which have been considered independently in previous research. Accordingly, negative affect only promotes symptom experience when people simultaneously focus their attention on the self. One correlational study and 4 experiments supported this prediction: Only negative mood combined with self-focus facilitated the experience (see the self-reports in Studies 1, 2a, & 2b) and the accessibility (lexical decisions, Stroop task in Studies 3 & 4) of physical symptoms, whereas neither positive mood nor negative mood without self-focus did. Furthermore, the joint impact of negative mood and self-focused attention on momentary symptom experience remained significant after controlling for the influence of dispositional symptom reporting and neuroticism.

Endocrine symptom assessment in women with breast cancer: what a simple "yes" means

GOALS OF WORK: To investigate the self-reported symptoms related to endocrine therapy in women with early or advanced breast cancer and the impact of these symptoms on quality of life (QL) indicators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Symptom occurrence was assessed by the Checklist for Patients on Endocrine Therapy (C-PET) and symptom intensity was assessed by linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) indicators. Patients also responded to global LASA indicators for physical well-being, mood, coping effort and treatment burden. Associations between symptoms and these indicators were analysed by linear regression models. MAIN RESULTS: Among 373 women, the distribution of symptom intensity showed considerable variation in patients reporting a symptom as present. Even though patients recorded a symptom as absent, some patients reported having experienced that symptom when responding to symptom intensity, as seen for decreased sex drive, tiredness and vaginal dryness. Six of 13 symptoms and lower age had a detrimental impact on the global indicators, particularly tiredness and irritability. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' experience of endocrine symptoms needs to be considered both in patient care and research, when interpreting the association between symptoms and QL.

Characteristics of Reflux Episodes and Symptom Association in Patients With Erosive Esophagitis and Nonerosive Reflux Disease: Study Using Combined Impedance–pH Off Therapy

We sought to compare reflux and symptom association patterns in patients with nonerosive reflux disease (NERD), erosive esophagitis (EE), and in healthy volunteers (HVs).

[CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (Chinese version)]

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials

Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.

Excellent agreement between genetic and hydrogen breath tests for lactase deficiency and the role of extended symptom assessment

Clinical manifestations of lactase (LCT) deficiency include intestinal and extra-intestinal symptoms. Lactose hydrogen breath test (H2-BT) is considered the gold standard to evaluate LCT deficiency (LD). Recently, the single-nucleotide polymorphism C/T(-13910) has been associated with LD. The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the agreement between genetic testing of LCT C/T(-13910) and lactose H2-BT, and the diagnostic value of extended symptom assessment. Of the 201 patients included in the study, 194 (139 females; mean age 38, range 17-79 years, and 55 males, mean age 38, range 18-68 years) patients with clinical suspicion of LD underwent a 3-4 h H2-BT and genetic testing for LCT C/T(-13910). Patients rated five intestinal and four extra-intestinal symptoms during the H2-BT and then at home for the following 48 h. Declaring H2-BT as the gold standard, the CC(-13910) genotype had a sensitivity of 97% and a specificity of 95% with a of 0.9 in diagnosing LCT deficiency. Patients with LD had more intense intestinal symptoms 4 h following the lactose challenge included in the H2-BT. We found no difference in the intensity of extra-intestinal symptoms between patients with and without LD. Symptom assessment yielded differences for intestinal symptoms abdominal pain, bloating, borborygmi and diarrhoea between 120 min and 4 h after oral lactose challenge. Extra-intestinal symptoms (dizziness, headache and myalgia) and extension of symptom assessment up to 48 h did not consistently show different results. In conclusion, genetic testing has an excellent agreement with the standard lactose H2-BT, and it may replace breath testing for the diagnosis of LD. Extended symptom scores and assessment of extra-intestinal symptoms have limited diagnostic value in the evaluation of LD.

Discretionary medical reporting of potentially unfit drivers: a questionnaire-based survey in Southeast Switzerland

In Switzerland, every physician has the right to report a patient that is potentially unfit to drive to the licensing authority without violating medical confidentiality. Verified information regarding physicians' attitudes concerning this discretionary reporting and the frequency of such reports are not available. In order to answer these questions, 635 resident physicians were sent a questionnaire. The response rate was 52%. On average, the responding physicians--for all specialties--reported 0.31 patients (SD 0.64, 95% CI 0.24-0.38) in the year before the survey and 1.00 patient (SD 1.74, 95% CI 0.81-1.20) in the past 5 years. Seventy-nine percent of the responding physicians indicated knowing the current legal requirements for driving in Switzerland. In applied logistic regression analysis, only two factors correlate significantly with reporting: male sex (odds ratio 5.4) and the specialty "general medicine" (odds ratio 3.4). Ninety-seven percent of the physicians were against abolishing medical discretionary reporting and 29% were in favor of introducing mandatory reporting. The great majority of the questioned physicians supported the discretionary reporting of drivers that are potentially unfit to drive as currently practiced in Switzerland. The importance and the necessity of a regular traffic medicine-related continuing education for medical professionals are shown by the low number of reports per physician.

Basic symptoms and ultrahigh risk criteria: symptom development in the initial prodromal state

Symptom development during the prodromal phase of psychosis was explored retrospectively in first-episode psychosis patients with special emphasis on the assumed time-related syndromic sequence of "unspecific symptoms (UN)-predictive basic symptoms (BS)-attenuated psychotic symptoms (APS)-(transient) psychotic symptoms (PS)." Onset of syndromes was defined by first occurrence of any of their respective symptoms. Group means were inspected for time differences between syndromes and influence of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics on the recalled sequence. The sequence of "UN-BS/APS-PS" was clearly supported, and both BS and, though slightly less, APS were highly sensitive. However, onset of BS and APS did not show significant time difference in the whole sample (N = 126; 90% schizophrenia), although when each symptom is considered independently, APS tended to occur later than first predictive BS. On descriptive level, about one-third each recalled an earlier, equal and later onset of BS compared with APS. Level of education showed the greatest impact on the recall of the hypothesized sequence. Thereby, those with a higher school-leaving certificate supported the assumed sequence, whereas those of low educational background retrospectively dated APS before BS. These findings rather point out recognition and recall bias inherent to the retrospective design than true group characteristics. Future long-term prospective studies will have to explore this conclusively. However, as regards the criteria, the results support the notion of BS as at least a complementary approach to the ultrahigh risk criteria, which may also allow for an earlier detection of psychosis.

Critical incident monitoring in paediatric and adult critical care: from reporting to improved patient outcomes?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Critical incident reporting alone does not necessarily improve patient safety or even patient outcomes. Substantial improvement has been made by focusing on the further two steps of critical incident monitoring, that is, the analysis of critical incidents and implementation of system changes. The system approach to patient safety had an impact on the view about the patient's role in safety. This review aims to analyse recent advances in the technique of reporting, the analysis of reported incidents, and the implementation of actual system improvements. It also explores how families should be approached about safety issues. RECENT FINDINGS: It is essential to make as many critical incidents as possible known to the intensive care team. Several factors have been shown to increase the reporting rate: anonymity, regular feedback about the errors reported, and the existence of a safety climate. Risk scoring of critical incident reports and root cause analysis may help in the analysis of incidents. Research suggests that patients can be successfully involved in safety. SUMMARY: A persisting high number of reported incidents is anticipated and regarded as continuing good safety culture. However, only the implementation of system changes, based on incident reports, and also involving the expertise of patients and their families, has the potential to improve patient outcome. Hard outcome criteria, such as standardized mortality ratio, have not yet been shown to improve as a result of critical incident monitoring.