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

The validity of self-reported energy intake as determined using the doubly labelled water technique

In the 1980s the development of the doubly labelled water (DLW) technique made it possible to determine the validity of dietary assessment methods using external, independent markers of intake in free-living populations. Since then, the accuracy of self-reported energy intake (EI) has been questioned on a number of occasions as under-reporting has been found to be prevalent in many different populations. This paper is a review of investigations using the DLW technique in conjunction with self-reported EI measures in groups including adults, children and adolescents, obese persons, athletes, military personnel and trekking explorers. In studies where a person other than the subject is responsible for recording dietary intake, such as parents of young children, EI generally corresponds to DLW determined energy expenditure. However, in instances where the subjects themselves report their intake, EI is generally under-reported when compared with energy expenditure. It was originally believed that this phenomenon of under-reporting was linked to increased adiposity and body size, however, it is now apparent that other factors, such as dietary restraint and socio-economic status, are also involved. This paper therefore aims to present a more comprehensive picture of under-reporting by tying in the findings of many DLW studies with other studies focusing particularly on the characteristics and mechanisms for under-reporting. Awareness of these characteristics and mechanisms will enable researchers to obtain more accurate self-reports of EI using all dietary recording techniques.

The radical homopolymerization of N-phenylmaleimide, N-n-hexylmaleimide and N-cyclohexylmaleimide in tetrahydrofuran

The kinetics and mechanisms of thermally initiated (using 2,2'-azobisisoburyronitrile (AIBN) as initiator) radical homopolymerizations of a series of maleimides, including N-phenymaleimide (PHMI) [l-phenyl-1H-pyrrole-2,5-dione]; N-n-hexylmaleimide (nHMI) [l-(n-hexyI)-1H-pyrrole-2,5-dione]; and N-cyclohexylmaIeimide (CHMI) [l-cyclohexyl- 1H-pyrrole-2,5-dione] have been investigated in THF solution by an on-line FT-NIR technique. It was found that the order of the activation energies for the three N-sub-MIs is: E-a PHMI < E-a (PHMI) < E-a (CHMI). The overall polymerization rate parameter k and the pre-exponential factor A were calculated. The kinetic order with respect to the N-sub-MIs was in the range of 0.71 < m < 0.75 for the initiator and n = 1.0 for the monomer. Radical transfer to solvent was found to be the key factor in determining the apparent order with respect to the initiator. All of the homopolymers had a relatively low molecular weight. The end groups of the polymer chains were characterized by MALDI-TOF, GPC and NMR methods and the results clearly indicate that the polymerization was initiated by THF radicals, and that the termination reaction is mainly controlled by chain transfer to solvent through an hydrogen abstraction mechanism. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.