[Diagnosis and therapy of depression in the heart disease patient]

Even though depressions and depressive symptoms are frequently observed in patients with medical diseases, their psychological problems are often neither diagnosed nor treated. Diagnosis of mood state might be easy in isolated cases yet it often is not since the precise nature of normal mood cannot be expressed in quantitative terms. Furthermore, depression can only be diagnosed based on the doctor's clinical appraisal and the patient's own description of his/her complaints. There is no gold standard on which depressive symptoms can be based on--and further on, depression is not a diagnosis. Instead, it is a syndrome that calls for differential diagnoses before treatment can be offered. Diagnosing depressive comorbidity in patients with medical complaints is even more difficult because of the overlap between symptoms of depression and accompanying symptoms of the somatic illness e.g. lack of energy. Although depressive states have been known to be a risk factor for the prognosis of patients with coronary heart disease for a long time, there is a paucity of research about the therapy these patients undergo due to the fact that tricyclic anti-depressants can have cardiotoxic effects on patients with heart disease. The treatment of depression in these patients has become a much lower risk since the introduction of serotonin reuptake inhibitors. There is widespread evidence that depressive comorbidity has a negative impact on the prognosis of medical disorders. Despite the complex nature of diagnosing depression, proper diagnosis and treatment is increasingly important in internal medicine and especially cardiology.

[The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting of observational studies]

Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

[The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies]

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

[The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology [STROBE] statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies]

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a che-cklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

STROBE Statement: linee guida per descrivere gli studi osservazionali

Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study’s generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, casecontrol, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed “Explanation and Elaboration” document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

Do patients respect the line? Transgression of boundaries reported by Swiss general practitioners

OBJECTIVE: Transgression of boundaries in the relationship between physician and patient is commonly studied with patient as victim and physician as transgressor. A recent survey in the U.S. reported that almost 90% of physicians face transgression by patients over one year. Incidents happened mainly through verbal abuse, disregarding privacy, and overly affectionate behavior. Since this incidence seems to be alarmingly high, we were interested to analyze how often general practitioners in Switzerland experience transgression by patients. METHODS: 24% of the members of the Swiss Society of Internal Medicine (SGIM) and of the Swiss Society of General Medicine (SGAM) (n=675/2781) responded to an internet-based survey which asked for experiences of transgression by patients and for physicians' responses to transgression in the last 12 months. RESULTS: 81% of responding physicians experienced transgression over the period of one year. Analyzing the frequency of incidents per physician per year, the most common forms of transgression were 'use of physician's first name' (7.7/y), 'asking personal questions' (1.8/y), 'being verbally abusive' (1.5/y), and 'being overly affectionate' (1.4/y). Calculated incidence of transgression was 3 per 1000 patient contacts. 39% of physicians decided to ignore the incident, 37% discussed the event openly. Transgression led to dismissal of patients in 13% of events. CONCLUSION: Transgression even in mild and modest form is a rare phenomenon in Swiss practices. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: The Swiss data do not suggest that there is a specific risk for Swiss practitioners to be exposed to major transgression for which they should specifically be prepared for example in communication skills trainings.

Further concerns about self-assessment: are medical students aware of their progress in clinical skills during clerkship

Background: Medical students do not accurately self-assess their competence. However, little is known about the awareness of change of competence over time. The aim of this study was to evaluate if students are aware of their progress. Summary of work: Twenty-two fourth year medical students had self- and expert-assessments of their clinical skills in musculoskeletal medicine in an OSCE like station (4 point Likert scale) at the beginning (t0) and end (t1) of their eight weeks clerkship in internal medicine. Thirteen students were assigned to the intervention of a 6x1 hour practical examination course; nine took part in the regular clinical clerkship activities only and served as controls. Summary of results/Conclusions: The intervention students significantly improved their skills (from 2.78 ± 0.36 to 3.30 ± 0.36, p<0.05) in contrast to the control students (from 3.11 ± 0.58 to 2.83 ± 0.49, n.s.). At t0, 19 students, at t1 21 out of 22 students underestimated their competence. Correlations between the change of self- and expert-assessment were r=0.43, p<0.05 (all), r=0.47, n.s. (control) and r=-0.12, n.s. (intervention), respectively. Take-home message: Medical students improving their clinical skills by an interactive course in addition to their regular clerkship activities are not aware of their progress

Self-assessment insufficiently predicts performance in emergency skills

Background: Residents demonstrate a broad range of performance levels for clinical skills, with some at an inadequate level. Adequate self-assessment is important for life long learning. However, its accuracy is questioned extensively. The aim of this study was to evaluate how far the residents’ self-assessment predicts their performance in an expert assessment of emergency skills. Summary of work: Twelve skills were identified as being relevant for the emergency duties of residents in smaller hospitals. Fifteen first-year residents from the departments of internal medicine and general surgery at a district hospital rated their performance on a questionnaire (self-assessment). This was followed by a structured, practical in vivo assessment by an anaesthesiologist (expert assessment). For both, a visual analogue scale from 0 to 10 was used, on which 0 stands for novice and 10 for expert. Predictive validity was described by Spearman’s correlation, which was significant in 3 out of 12 skills only. Median correlation (r) was 0.50 (range 0.16 to 0.93). Conclusion: At the beginning of postgraduate training, self-assessment alone is not sufficient to guide self-directed learning. Take-home message: At the beginning of their residency, physicians need structured feedback in emergency skills which can be offered by anaesthesiologists.

Coronary artery disease is common in asymptomatic patients with signs of myocardial ischemia

BACKGROUND: The incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in totally asymptomatic patients with myocardial ischemia during stress testing is unknown. METHODS: 54 patients with asymptomatic myocardial ischemia participated in the Swiss Interventional Study on Silent Ischemia type I (SWISSI I). Asymptomatic myocardial ischemia was verified by bicycle ergometry and stress imaging (echocardiography or scintigraphy). Findings from coronary angiographies in the course of the study constituted the main outcome. RESULTS: Of the 54 study participants, 29 patients (53.7%) underwent coronary angiography. CAD was found in 27 of 29 patients (93.1%). In those 27 patients with CAD, 9 patients (33.3%) suffered from single vessel disease, 9 patients (33.3%) from two vessel disease, and 9 patients (33.3%) from triple vessel disease. Two patients showed left main coronary artery stenosis. CONCLUSION: This study shows a high incidence of relevant CAD among totally asymptomatic patients with myocardial ischemia during stress testing. Previously healthy subjects with exercise-induced ST-segment depression at check-up examinations, even if asymptomatic, should have further diagnostic evaluation.

STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA): an extension of the STROBE Statement

Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information into the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and issues of data volume that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.