Robert A. McNutt

Acute severe low back pain : a population-based study of prevalence and care-seeking

Study Design Telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of adults in 4437 North Carolina households. The response rate was 79%. Objective The prevalence of low back pain and the correlates of care-seeking in a defined population were examined. Summary of Background Data Previous research on low back pain has used varying definitions of the illness of low back pain, and has admixed patients with acute and chronic low back pain. Acute low back pain was examined in this study as a distinct phenomenon separate from chronic low back pain. Methods Respondents completed a detailed interview regarding the occurrence of and care sought for back pain in 1991. Acute back pain was defined as functionally limiting pain lasting less than 3 months. Results From this sample, 485 individuals had at least one occurrence of acute severe low back pain in 1991, representing 7.6% of the adult population. Symptoms were reported less commonly in individuals older than age 60 years (5% vs. 8.5%) and in nonwhites compared with whites (5% vs. 8%). Thirty-nine percent of those with back pain sought medical care; 24% sought care initially from an allopathic physician, 13% from a chiropractor, and 2% from other providers. More prolonged pain, more severe pain, and sciatica were associated with care-seeking. Gender, income, age, rural residence, and health insurance status did not correlate with the decision to seek medical care. Younger age, male gender, and nonjob-related pain did correlate with the decision to seek care from a chiropractor. Conclusions Acute back pain is common. Care is often sought regardless of income and insurance status. Seeing a health care provider for acute back pain may not be discretionary from the perspective of the patient.

The characteristics of peer reviewers who produce good-quality reviews

Objective: To determine the characteristics of good peer reviewers.Design: Cross-sectional analysis of data gathered during a randomized controlled trial.Setting: The Journal of General Internal Medicine.Participants: 226 reviewers of 131 consecutively submitted manuscripts of original research. 201 (91%) completed the review and submitted a curriculum vitae.Measurements and main results: The quality of each review was judged on a scale from 1 to 5 by an editor who was blinded to the identity of the reviewer. Reviewer characteristics were taken from the curricula vitae. 86 of the 201 reviewers (43%) produced good reviews (a grade of 4 or 5). Using logistic regression, the authors found that when a reviewer was less than 40 years old, from a top academic institution, well known to the editor choosing the reviewer, and blinded to the identity of the manuscript’s authors, the probability that he or she would produce a good review was 87%, whereas a reviewer without any of these characteristics had a 7% probability of producing a good review. Other characteristics that were significant only on bivariate analysis included previous clinical research training, additional postgraduate degrees, and more time spent on the review. There was a negative but statistically nonsignificant association between academic rank and review quality: 37% of full professors, 39% of associate professors, and 51% of assistant professors or fellows produced good reviews (p=0.11).Conclusions: Good peer reviewers for this journal tended to be young, from strong academic institutions, well known to the editors, and blinded to the identity of the manuscript’s authors.

Management Of Dizziness In Primary Care

Background: We sought to determine the types of dizziness problems that are commonly seen in primary care practices, and to bring to light clinical and demographic factors that predict management decisions. Methods: We undertook a prospective cohort study with a 6-month follow-up using data gathered in nine primary care practices in two North Carolina counties. Subjects were 144 dizziness patients examined by primary care physicians. Data collected included demographic characteristics, a standardized dizziness history, physician estimation of symptom severity and diagnostic certainty, and physician “worry” about arrhythmia, transient ischemic attack, and brain tumor. Physicians reported their management decisions and diagnosis (or differential diagnosis) by responding to a questionnaire after completing the patient encounter. A 6-month follow-up chart review and physician interview were completed on 140 patients (97.2 percent); information obtained included changes in diagnosis and patient mortality. Results: The most common diagnoses were labyrinthitis, otitis media, benign positional vertigo, unspecified presyncope, sinusitis, and transient ischemic attack. The initial diagnosis changed during the 6-month follow-up period in 34 (24.3 percent) of patients. The overall course of these patients was benign, however, with only one death occurring during the 6-month follow-up period. Patients’ dizziness tended to be managed using a combination of strategies, including office laboratory testing (33.6 percent), advanced testing (11.4 percent), referral to a specialist (9.3 percent), medication (61.3 percent), observation (71.8 percent), reassurance (41.6 percent), and behavioral recommendations (15.0 percent). Office laboratory testing was associated with younger patient age, a suspected metabolic or endocrine disorder, and physician worry about a cardiac arrhythmia; advanced laboratory testing was associated with suspected cardiovascular or neurologic disorders. Medication tended to be prescribed for vertigo and severe symptoms and avoided when physicians were worried about a cardiac arrhythmia. Referral to a specialist was associated with suspected neurologic disease. Observation, behavior change, and reassurance were avoided in patients with poorly defined dizziness and tended to be used in older patients. The management approaches employed by the 4 physicians who referred the most subjects to the study varied considerably. Conclusions: Dizziness in primary care represents an extremely broad spectrum of diagnoses. The generally conservative management approach of primary care phyicians in this study is consistent with basic clinical and epidemiologic principles, and patient mortality with this approach is low.

Finding cancer in primary care outpatients with low back pain: a comparison of diagnostic strategies.

AbstractOBJECTIVE: To compare strategies for diagnosing cancer in primary care patients with low back pain. Strategies differed in their use of clinical findings, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), and plain x-rays prior to imaging and biopsy. DESIGN: Decision analysis and cost effectiveness analysis with sensitivity analyses. Strategies were compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic cost effectiveness ratios. SETTING: Hypothetical. MEASUREMENTS: Estimates of disease prevalence and test characteristics were taken from the literature. Costs were represented by the Medicare reimbursement for the tests and procedures employed. MAIN RESULTS: In the baseline analysis, using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the imaging procedure prior to a single biopsy, strategies ranged in sensitivity from 0.40 to 0.73, with corresponding diagnostic costs of

Accuracy of the clinical examination in detecting hypoxemia in infants with respiratory illness

14 to

Measuring Patient Preferences for Health Outcomes: A Decision Analytic Approach

241 per patient with average cost effectiveness ratios of

Expert testimony based on decision analysis: a malpractice case report.

5,283 to

A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pediatric Intraosseous Infusion as a Prehospital Skill

49,814 per case of cancer found. Incremental cost effectiveness ratios varied from

A Decision Analysis of Streptokinase plus Heparin as Compared with Heparin Alone for Deep-Vein Thrombosis

8,397 to

Management of infants at risk for occult bacteremia: a decision analysis.

624,781; five strategies were dominant in the baseline analysis. Use of a higher ESR cutoff point (50 mm/hr) improved specificity and cost effectiveness for certain strategies. Imaging with MRI, or bone scan followed in series by MRI, resulted in fewer unnecessary biopsies than imaging with bone scan alone. Cancer prevalence was an important determinant of cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend a strategy of imaging patients who have a clinical finding (history of cancer, age ≥ 50 years, weight loss, or failure to improve with conservative therapy) in combination with either an elevated ESR (≥50 mm/hr) or a positive x-ray, or using the same approach but imaging directly those patients with a history of cancer.