Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Breast J ; 19(6): 582-9, 2013.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24011215

RESUMO

To determine if ultrasound and/or mammography is helpful in detecting breast cancers in patients presenting with focal breast pain. Patients who presented between February 2008 and April 2011 with focal breast pain without a lump were included in the study. The mammographic and US findings were retrospectively reviewed. BIRADS 0, 4, and 5 were considered positive on mammogram while BIRADS 4 and 5 were considered positive on US. The efficacy of mammogram-alone, ultrasound-alone, and in combination to detect breast cancer was evaluated. The performance of mammography for detecting any mass lesions that were present on subsequent US was also evaluated. A total of 257 patients were evaluated with US and 206 (80.1%) of these also had mammograms prior to the US. Cancer incidence was 1.2% (n = 3). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of mammogram-alone and US-alone for detection of breast cancer in these patients were 100%, 87.6%, 10.7%, 100% and 100%, 92.5%, 13.6%, and 100%, respectively, while for combined mammogram and US was 100%, 83.7%, 8.3%, and 100%. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of mammogram for identifying an underlying suspicious mass lesion that was subsequently detected by US was 58%, 91%, 39%, and 95%. The NPV of a BIRADS 1 mammogram for any underlying mass lesion was 75%. Addition of an ultrasound to a mammogram did not detect additional cancers; likely due to low cancer incidence in these patients. However, US detected underlying mass lesions in 25% cases with a BIRADS 1 mammogram result.


Assuntos
Doenças Mamárias/diagnóstico , Mamografia , Ultrassonografia Mamária , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Criança , Feminino , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos
2.
Cureus ; 10(5): e2694, 2018 May 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30062068

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Periodontal disease is defined as an inflammation of the gums that may result in loss of the tissues holding the teeth in its place. The signs and symptoms include red and/or swollen gums, bleeding gums, halitosis or in severe cases, loosening of teeth. Periodontal diseases act as a risk factor for several health conditions including diabetes and cardiovascular diseases and it can even result in adverse pregnancy outcomes. Therefore, in this study, we aim to assess the knowledge of medical practitioners regarding periodontal diseases and its impact on overall health. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study that included 100 medical practitioners working in the Combined Military Hospital Lahore, Pakistan. RESULTS: In our study, 83.0% participants knew the definition of periodontal disease; 7.0% of the participants responded that they take their patient's periodontal history; 26.0% screened their patients for gums related problems while 87.0% reported that they are comfortable in performing an oral examination. 80.0% of the participants agreed that periodontal disease can be a risk factor for diabetes; 73.0% said they believe that it can lead to adverse pregnancy outcomes; 62.0% thought that it can result in cardiovascular diseases. CONCLUSION: Most of the participants in our study had a considerable amount of knowledge about periodontal diseases. However, it is important to stress the value of taking a detailed periodontal history and screening patients for periodontal problems.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA