Ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care: external validation of a clinical prediction rule.

BACKGROUND: The Marburg Heart Score (MHS) aims to assist GPs in safely ruling out coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients presenting with chest pain, and to guide management decisions. AIM: To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the MHS in an independent sample and to evaluate the generalisability to new patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional diagnostic study with delayed-type reference standard in general practice in Hesse, Germany. METHOD: Fifty-six German GPs recruited 844 males and females aged ≥ 35 years, presenting between July 2009 and February 2010 with chest pain. Baseline data included the items of the MHS. Data on the subsequent course of chest pain, investigations, hospitalisations, and medication were collected over 6 months and were reviewed by an independent expert panel. CHD was the reference condition. Measures of diagnostic accuracy included the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and predictive values. RESULTS: The AUC was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80 to 0.88). For a cut-off value of 3, the MHS showed a sensitivity of 89.1% (95% CI = 81.1% to 94.0%), a specificity of 63.5% (95% CI = 60.0% to 66.9%), a positive predictive value of 23.3% (95% CI = 19.2% to 28.0%), and a negative predictive value of 97.9% (95% CI = 96.2% to 98.9%). CONCLUSION: Considering the diagnostic accuracy of the MHS, its generalisability, and ease of application, its use in clinical practice is recommended.

Sign of the Times, November 2013 - February 2014

Newsletter produced by Deaf Services Commission of Iowa

Sign language in Landau-Kleffner syndrome.

This article reviews the history of sign language (SL) and the rationale for its use in children with profound auditory agnosia due to Landau-Kleffner syndrome (LKS), illustrated by studies of children and adults followed for many years and rare cases from the literature. The reasons that SL was successful and brought some children out of isolation while it could not be implemented in others are discussed. The nowadays earlier recognition and treatment of LKS and better awareness of the crucial need to maintain communication have certainly improved the outcome of affected children. Alternatives to oral language, even for less severe cases, are increasingly accepted. SL can be learned at different ages with a clear benefit, but the ambivalence of the patients and their families with the world and culture of the deaf may sometimes explain its refusal or limited acceptance. There are no data to support the fear that SL learning may delay or prevent oral language recovery in children with LKS. On the contrary, SL may even facilitate this recovery by stimulating functionally connected core language networks and by helping speech therapy and auditory training.