Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The clinical implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection are highly variable. Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 and COVID-19 pneumonia in others. This can lead to some people requiring intensive care support and, in some cases, to death, especially in older adults. Symptoms such as fever, cough, or loss of smell or taste, and signs such as oxygen saturation are the first and most readily available diagnostic information. Such information could be used to either rule out COVID-19, or select patients for further testing. This is an update of this review, the first version of which published in July 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: For this review iteration we undertook electronic searches up to 15 July 2020 in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the University of Bern living search database. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included patients with clinically suspected COVID-19, or if they recruited known cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Studies were eligible when they recruited patients presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies in hospitalised patients were only included if symptoms and signs were recorded on admission or at presentation. Studies including patients who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract stage and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the Quality Assessment tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) checklist. We presented sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in receiver operating characteristic space and in dumbbell plots. We estimated summary parameters using a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis whenever five or more primary studies were available, and whenever heterogeneity across studies was deemed acceptable. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 44 studies including 26,884 participants in total. Prevalence of COVID-19 varied from 3% to 71% with a median of 21%. There were three studies from primary care settings (1824 participants), nine studies from outpatient testing centres (10,717 participants), 12 studies performed in hospital outpatient wards (5061 participants), seven studies in hospitalised patients (1048 participants), 10 studies in the emergency department (3173 participants), and three studies in which the setting was not specified (5061 participants). The studies did not clearly distinguish mild from severe COVID-19, so we present the results for all disease severities together. Fifteen studies had a high risk of bias for selection of participants because inclusion in the studies depended on the applicable testing and referral protocols, which included many of the signs and symptoms under study in this review. This may have especially influenced the sensitivity of those features used in referral protocols, such as fever and cough. Five studies only included participants with pneumonia on imaging, suggesting that this is a highly selected population. In an additional 12 studies, we were unable to assess the risk for selection bias. This makes it very difficult to judge the validity of the diagnostic accuracy of the signs and symptoms from these included studies. The applicability of the results of this review update improved in comparison with the original review. A greater proportion of studies included participants who presented to outpatient settings, which is where the majority of clinical assessments for COVID-19 take place. However, still none of the studies presented any data on children separately, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We found data on 84 signs and symptoms. Results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity. Only cough (25 studies) and fever (7 studies) had a pooled sensitivity of at least 50% but specificities were moderate to low. Cough had a sensitivity of 67.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 59.8% to 74.1%) and specificity of 35.0% (95% CI 28.7% to 41.9%). Fever had a sensitivity of 53.8% (95% CI 35.0% to 71.7%) and a specificity of 67.4% (95% CI 53.3% to 78.9%). The pooled positive likelihood ratio of cough was only 1.04 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.11) and that of fever 1.65 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.93). Anosmia alone (11 studies), ageusia alone (6 studies), and anosmia or ageusia (6 studies) had sensitivities below 50% but specificities over 90%. Anosmia had a pooled sensitivity of 28.0% (95% CI 17.7% to 41.3%) and a specificity of 93.4% (95% CI 88.3% to 96.4%). Ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 24.8% (95% CI 12.4% to 43.5%) and a specificity of 91.4% (95% CI 81.3% to 96.3%). Anosmia or ageusia had a pooled sensitivity of 41.0% (95% CI 27.0% to 56.6%) and a specificity of 90.5% (95% CI 81.2% to 95.4%). The pooled positive likelihood ratios of anosmia alone and anosmia or ageusia were 4.25 (95% CI 3.17 to 5.71) and 4.31 (95% CI 3.00 to 6.18) respectively, which is just below our arbitrary definition of a 'red flag', that is, a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5. The pooled positive likelihood ratio of ageusia alone was only 2.88 (95% CI 2.02 to 4.09). Only two studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms, mostly combining fever and cough with other symptoms. These combinations had a specificity above 80%, but at the cost of very low sensitivity (< 30%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The majority of individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic accuracy, although this should be interpreted in the context of selection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out COVID-19. The presence of anosmia or ageusia may be useful as a red flag for COVID-19. The presence of fever or cough, given their high sensitivities, may also be useful to identify people for further testing. Prospective studies in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings, examining combinations of signs and symptoms to evaluate the syndromic presentation of COVID-19, are still urgently needed. Results from such studies could inform subsequent management decisions.

The importance of component-resolved diagnostics in IgE-mediated cow's milk allergy.

Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is an increasingly common problem among children and adults that requires the use of appropriate diagnostics to eliminate allergic reactions and prevent unnecessary dietary regimes. The current diagnostics methods are imperfect hence new, more effective methods are still being sought. Component-resolved diagnostics (CRD) is one of them. CRD assesses sensitivity to individual allergen molecules using purified native or recombinant allergens. The present paper reviews the role of CRD in diagnosing CMA, as well as the benefits and limitations of its use, especially in predicting allergy development or acquiring immunotolerance. It examines the possibility of replacing the current gold diagnostic standard with component tests directed against specific milk proteins. In addition, CRD could be helpful in the evaluation of prognosis. However, CRD allows for improvement in clinical management, particularly of polysensitized subjects, there is still no cogent evidence that it offers more efficient CMA diagnostics than existing tests.

Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19 disease.

BACKGROUND: Some people with SARS-CoV-2 infection remain asymptomatic, whilst in others the infection can cause mild to moderate COVID-19 disease and COVID-19 pneumonia, leading some patients to require intensive care support and, in some cases, to death, especially in older adults. Symptoms such as fever or cough, and signs such as oxygen saturation or lung auscultation findings, are the first and most readily available diagnostic information. Such information could be used to either rule out COVID-19 disease, or select patients for further diagnostic testing. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of signs and symptoms to determine if a person presenting in primary care or to hospital outpatient settings, such as the emergency department or dedicated COVID-19 clinics, has COVID-19 disease or COVID-19 pneumonia. SEARCH METHODS: On 27 April 2020, we undertook electronic searches in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the University of Bern living search database, which is updated daily with published articles from PubMed and Embase and with preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv. In addition, we checked repositories of COVID-19 publications. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they included patients with suspected COVID-19 disease, or if they recruited known cases with COVID-19 disease and controls without COVID-19. Studies were eligible when they recruited patients presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings. Studies including patients who contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection while admitted to hospital were not eligible. The minimum eligible sample size of studies was 10 participants. All signs and symptoms were eligible for this review, including individual signs and symptoms or combinations. We accepted a range of reference standards including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), clinical expertise, imaging, serology tests and World Health Organization (WHO) or other definitions of COVID-19. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently selected all studies, at both title and abstract stage and full-text stage. They resolved any disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently extracted data and resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 checklist. Analyses were descriptive, presenting sensitivity and specificity in paired forest plots, in ROC (receiver operating characteristic) space and in dumbbell plots. We did not attempt meta-analysis due to the small number of studies, heterogeneity across studies and the high risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 16 studies including 7706 participants in total. Prevalence of COVID-19 disease varied from 5% to 38% with a median of 17%. There were no studies from primary care settings, although we did find seven studies in outpatient clinics (2172 participants), and four studies in the emergency department (1401 participants). We found data on 27 signs and symptoms, which fall into four different categories: systemic, respiratory, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular. No studies assessed combinations of different signs and symptoms and results were highly variable across studies. Most had very low sensitivity and high specificity; only six symptoms had a sensitivity of at least 50% in at least one study: cough, sore throat, fever, myalgia or arthralgia, fatigue, and headache. Of these, fever, myalgia or arthralgia, fatigue, and headache could be considered red flags (defined as having a positive likelihood ratio of at least 5) for COVID-19 as their specificity was above 90%, meaning that they substantially increase the likelihood of COVID-19 disease when present. Seven studies carried a high risk of bias for selection of participants because inclusion in the studies depended on the applicable testing and referral protocols, which included many of the signs and symptoms under study in this review. Five studies only included participants with pneumonia on imaging, suggesting that this is a highly selected population. In an additional four studies, we were unable to assess the risk for selection bias. These factors make it very difficult to determine the diagnostic properties of these signs and symptoms from the included studies. We also had concerns about the applicability of these results, since most studies included participants who were already admitted to hospital or presenting to hospital settings. This makes these findings less applicable to people presenting to primary care, who may have less severe illness and a lower prevalence of COVID-19 disease. None of the studies included any data on children, and only one focused specifically on older adults. We hope that future updates of this review will be able to provide more information about the diagnostic properties of signs and symptoms in different settings and age groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The individual signs and symptoms included in this review appear to have very poor diagnostic properties, although this should be interpreted in the context of selection bias and heterogeneity between studies. Based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out disease. Prospective studies in an unselected population presenting to primary care or hospital outpatient settings, examining combinations of signs and symptoms to evaluate the syndromic presentation of COVID-19 disease, are urgently needed. Results from such studies could inform subsequent management decisions such as self-isolation or selecting patients for further diagnostic testing. We also need data on potentially more specific symptoms such as loss of sense of smell. Studies in older adults are especially important.

Physical Symptom Cluster Subgroups in Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Symptom burden associated with chronic kidney disease can be debilitating, with a negative effect on patient health-related quality of life. Latent class clustering analysis is an innovative tool for classifying patient symptom experience. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to identify subgroups of patients at greatest risk for high symptom burden, which may facilitate development of patient-centered symptom management interventions. METHODS: In this cross-sectional analysis, baseline data were analyzed from 3,921 adults enrolled in the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort Study from 2003 to 2008. Latent class cluster modeling using 11 items on the Kidney Disease Quality of Life symptom profile was employed to identify patient subgroups based on similar observed physical symptom response patterns. Multinomial logistic regression models were estimated with demographic variables, lifestyle and clinical variables, and self-reported measures (Kidney Disease Quality of Life physical and mental component summaries and the Beck Depression Inventory). RESULTS: Three symptom-based subgroups were identified, differing in severity (low symptom, moderate symptom, and high symptom). After adjusting for other variables in multinomial logistic regression, membership in the high-symptom subgroup was less likely for non-Hispanic Blacks and men. Other factors associated with membership in the high-symptom subgroup included lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, history of cardiac/cardiovascular disease, higher Beck Depression Inventory scores, and lower Kidney Disease Quality of Life physical and mental component summaries. DISCUSSION: Three symptom subgroups of patients were identified among patients with mild-to-moderate chronic kidney disease. Several demographic and clinical variables predicted membership in subgroups. Further research is needed to determine if symptom subgroups are stable over time and can be used to predict healthcare utilization and clinical outcomes.

The PERSONS score for symptoms assessment in simultaneous care setting: A pilot study.

One of the first steps to early integrate palliative care into oncology practice is a timely and efficient evaluation of symptoms (Bakitas et al., 2015; Davis et al., 2015; Temel et al., 2010). In a recent position paper, the Italian Association of Medical Oncology tells oncologists that they "must be able to prevent, recognize, measure, and treat all cancer-related symptoms" (Zagonel et al., 2017). Major international scientific societies such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society of Medical Oncology have often defined the key role of symptoms evaluation and management to force the integration of palliative care into oncology (Davis et al., 2015; Ferrel et al., 2017). Nevertheless, a recent survey conducted by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology shows that only 20% of oncologists regularly uses valid tools to evaluate symptoms, 45% exclusively use them in the context of clinical trials, 30% use them only occasionally, and 5% never use them (Zagonel et al., 2016).

What Definition Is Used to Describe Second Impact Syndrome in Sports? A Systematic and Critical Review.

Concern about what has been termed, "second impact syndrome" (SIS) is a major factor determining return-to-play decisions after concussion. However, definitions of SIS vary. We used Scopus to conduct a systematic review and categorize the definitions used to describe SIS. Of the 91 sources identified, 79 (87%) clearly specified that SIS involved either cerebral edema or death after a concussion when a prior concussion had not resolved. Twelve articles (13%) could be interpreted as merely the events of two consecutive concussions. Among the articles that listed mortality rates, nearly all (33/35, 94%) said the rate of death was "high" (e.g., 50% to 100%). Our review found that most articles define SIS as a syndrome requiring catastrophic brain injury after consecutive concussive episodes. Given that it is unclear how common it is to have a second concussion while not fully recovered from a first concussion, the actual mortality rate of SIS is unknown.

[Correlation between TCM syndrome types and clinical symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia with chronic prostatitis].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the correlation between the syndrome types of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and clinical symptoms of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) with chronic prostatitis (BPH-CP). METHODS: We selected 150 cases of BPH-CP in this study and divided them into 7 TCM syndrome types. Using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses, we studied the correlation of each TCM syndrome type with the age, disease course, prostate volume, postvoid residual urine volume (PVR), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, maximum urinary flow rate (Qmax), and International Prostate Symptoms Score (IPSS). RESULTS: Kidney-yin deficiency was correlated positively with the prostate volume but negatively with Qmax and IPSS; kidney-yang deficiency positively with the age and prostate volume but negatively with IPSS; the damp heat syndrome positively with the PSA level but negatively with the disease course, prostate volume and Qmax; the spleen-qi deficiency syndrome positively with the prostate volume but negatively with the disease course; liver-qi stagnation positively with the disease course but negatively with the age, prostate volume and PVR; the syndrome of qi stagnation and blood stasis positively with the disease course and IPSS but negatively with PVR; the syndrome of lung-heat and qi blockage positively with the age, Qmax and IPSS but negatively with the disease course. CONCLUSIONS: The TCM syndrome types of BPH-CP are closely correlated to their clinical symptoms. The analysis of the clinical objective indexes of BPH-CP can provide some reliable evidence for accurate identification of the TCM syndrome type of the disease.

Personalized symptom goals and response in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Improving symptoms is a major goal of cancer medicine; however, symptom response is often based on group differences and not individualized. In the current study, the authors examined the personalized symptom goal (PSG) for 10 common symptoms in patients with advanced cancer, and identified the factors associated with PSG response. METHODS: In this prospective, longitudinal, multicenter study, patients from 5 tertiary care hospitals rated the intensity of 10 symptoms using a numeric rating scale of 0 to 10 at the time of their first clinic visit and then at a second visit 14 to 34 days later. The PSG was determined for each symptom by asking patients: "At what level would you feel comfortable with this symptom?" using the same scale of 0 to 10 for symptom intensity. PSG response was defined as symptom intensity at the time of the second visit that was less than or equal to the PSG. RESULTS: Among 728 patients, the median PSG was 1 for nausea; 2 for depression, anxiety, drowsiness, well-being, dyspnea, and sleep; and 3 for pain, fatigue, and appetite. A greater percentage of patients achieved a PSG response at their second visit compared with their first visit (P<.05 except for drowsiness). Symptom response was associated with lower baseline symptom intensity based on PSG criterion but higher baseline symptom intensity based on the traditional minimal clinically important difference definition (P<.001 for all symptoms). In multivariable analysis, higher PSG and nationality were associated with greater PSG response. CONCLUSIONS: The PSG was ≤3 for a majority of patients. PSG response allows clinicians to tailor treatment goals while adjusting for individual differences in scale interpretation and factors associated with symptom response. Cancer 2016;122:1774-81. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Consensus classification criteria for paediatric Behçet's disease from a prospective observational cohort: PEDBD.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to describe the main features of Behçet's disease (BD) in children in the largest prospective cohort to date and to propose a classification. METHODS: An international expert consensus group was formed to define a data set of minimal symptoms for the inclusion of patients. Patients were entered prospectively during 66 months. Experts classified patients on a consensus basis. The concordance of two international classifications was analysed in confirmed patients with BD. Comparisons of subgroups of patients helped define consensus criteria. BD-associated clinical manifestations were also investigated in three control diseases extracted from an independent data set (Eurofever). FINDINGS: In total, 42 centres from 12 countries included 230 patients; data for 219 (M/F ratio=1) could be analysed. The experts classified 156 patients (71.2%) as having confirmed BD. Males more often than females showed cutaneous, ocular and vascular symptoms and females more often genital aphthosis. Age at disease onset and skin and vascular involvement were lower for European than non-European children. Oral aphthosis was the presenting sign for 81% (179/219) of patients. The mean delay to the second symptom was 2.9±2.2 years. International classifications were not concordant with the expert classification. Our paediatric classification contains six categories, a minimum of three signs (each in a distinct category) defining paediatric BD. Three clinical signs discriminated our cohort from the Eurofever cohorts. INTERPRETATION: We present a comprehensive description of a large cohort of patients from both European and non-European countries and propose the first classification of paediatric BD for future therapeutic trials.

The diagnosis of pre-eclampsia using two revised classifications in the Finnish Pre-eclampsia Consortium (FINNPEC) cohort.

BACKGROUND: The Finnish Pre-eclampsia Consortium (FINNPEC) case-control cohort consisting of 1447 pre-eclamptic and 1068 non-pre-eclamptic women was recruited during 2008-2011 to study genetic background of pre-eclampsia and foetal growth. Pre-eclampsia was defined by hypertension and proteinuria according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2002 classification. The ACOG Task Force Report on Hypertension in Pregnancy (2013) and The International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy (ISSHP) (2014) have published new classifications, in which proteinuria is not necessary for diagnosis when specific symptoms are present. For diagnoses based on proteinuria, the ISSHP 2014 criteria raised its threshold to 2+ on dipstick. We studied how the new classifications would affect pre-eclampsia diagnoses in the FINNPEC cohort. METHODS: We re-evaluated pre-eclampsia diagnosis using the ACOG 2013 and the ISSHP 2014 classifications in pre-eclamptic women whose proteinuria did not exceed 1+ on dipstick (n = 68), in women with gestational hypertension (n = 138) and in women with chronic hypertension (n = 66). RESULTS: The number of women with pre-eclampsia increased 0.8 % (1459/1447) according to the ACOG 2013 criteria and 0.6 % (1455/1447) according to the ISSHP 2014 criteria. All 68 women with the amount of proteinuria not exceeding 1+ on dipstick diagnosed originally pre-eclamptic met the ACOG 2013 criteria but only 20 women (29.4 %) met the ISSHP 2014 criteria. Seven (5.1 %) and 35 (25.4 %) women with gestational hypertension were diagnosed with pre-eclampsia according to the ACOG 2013 and the ISSHP 2014 criteria, respectively. Correspondingly five (7.6 %) and 21 (31.8 %) women with chronic hypertension were diagnosed with pre-eclampsia according to the ACOG 2 013 and the ISSHP 2014 criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Only minor changes were observed in the total number of pre-eclamptic women in the FINNPEC cohort when comparing the ACOC 2002 classification with the ACOG 2013 and ISSHP 2014 classifications.

Is Computed Tomography Imaging of Deviated Nasal Septum Justified for Obstruction Confirmation?

Third-party payers request objective confirmation of the nasal septum deviation (NSD) severity by computed tomography (CT) before authorizing financial support for septoplasty. Previous studies have provided contradictory results related to the link between obstruction severity and CT-measured angle of the NSD. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the diverse CT morphology of NSDs (including previously neglected types and shapes) could predict obstruction severity. The study included 225 patients with NSD. The CT morphology of the septum was analyzed using 5 different classifications of NSD that are commonly used in the clinical practice and research. The angle of NSD was also measured. Nasal obstruction was assessed by the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) questionnaire. A relationship between CT morphology and the angle of the NSD and NOSE scores was analyzed using appropriate regression models. Patients with NSDs located in the anterior part of the septum always have some degree of nasal obstruction, while those with posterior NSDs did not necessarily report obstruction symptoms no matter how complicated NSD they have. Regression analysis did not reveal any causal relationship between NOSE scores and CT morphology and the angle of NSD. The presence of spurs and whether they divide nasal passages have no statistically significant predictive effect on the obstruction severity. The CT morphology and the angle of the NSD could not predict severity of the nasal obstruction. Requesting CT examination just to objectively confirm nasal obstruction is not justified.

Symptom-based early-stage differentiation between SARS-CoV-2 versus other respiratory tract infections-Upper Silesia pilot study.

In the DECODE project, data were collected from 3,114 surveys filled by symptomatic patients RT-qPCR tested for SARS-CoV-2 in a single university centre in March-September 2020. The population demonstrated balanced sex and age with 759 SARS-CoV-2( +) patients. The most discriminative symptoms in SARS-CoV-2( +) patients at early infection stage were loss of taste/smell (OR = 3.33, p < 0.0001), body temperature above 38℃ (OR = 1.67, p < 0.0001), muscle aches (OR = 1.30, p = 0.0242), headache (OR = 1.27, p = 0.0405), cough (OR = 1.26, p = 0.0477). Dyspnea was more often reported among SARS-CoV-2(-) (OR = 0.55, p < 0.0001). Cough and dyspnea were 3.5 times more frequent among SARS-CoV-2(-) (OR = 0.28, p < 0.0001). Co-occurrence of cough, muscle aches, headache, loss of taste/smell (OR = 4.72, p = 0.0015) appeared significant, although co-occurrence of two symptoms only, cough and loss of smell or taste, means OR = 2.49 (p < 0.0001). Temperature > 38℃ with cough was most frequent in men (20%), while loss of taste/smell with cough in women (17%). For younger people, taste/smell impairment is sufficient to characterise infection, whereas in older patients co-occurrence of fever and cough is necessary. The presented study objectifies the single symptoms and interactions significance in COVID-19 diagnoses and demonstrates diverse symptomatology in patient groups.

Symptom perception in heart failure: a scoping review on definition, factors and instruments.

BACKGROUND: Symptom perception in heart failure has been identified as crucial for effective self-care that is a modifiable factor related to decreased hospital readmission and improved survival. AIMS: To review systematically the heart failure symptom perception literature and synthesise knowledge on definition, description, factors and instruments. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review including studies reporting patient-reported symptom perception in adults with heart failure. Structured searches were conducted in Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane, JBI and grey literature. Two authors independently reviewed references for eligibility. Data were charted in tables and results narratively summarised. RESULTS: The search yielded 3057 references, of which 106 were included. The definition of heart failure symptom perception comprised body listening, monitoring signs, recognising, interpreting and labelling symptoms, and furthermore awareness of and assigning meaning to the change. Symptom monitoring, recognition and interpretation were identified as challenging. Symptom perception facilitators include prior heart failure hospitalisation, heart failure self-care maintenance, symptom perception confidence, illness uncertainty and social support. Barriers include knowledge deficits, symptom clusters and lack of tools/materials. Factors with inconsistent impact on symptom perception include age, sex, education, experiences of living with heart failure, comorbidities, cognitive impairment, depression and symptom progression. One instrument measuring all dimensions of heart failure symptom perception was identified. CONCLUSION: Heart failure symptom perception definition and description have been elucidated. Several factors facilitating or hampering symptom perception are known. Further research is needed to determine a risk profile for poor symptom perception - which can then be taken into consideration when supporting heart failure self-care.

Clinical diagnosis scale for pain lumbar of facet origin: systematic review of literature and pilot study. / Escala de diagnóstico clínico para dolor lumbar de origen facetario: revisión sistemática de la literatura y estudio piloto.

INTRODUCTION: Lumbar pain affects between 60-90% of people. It is a frequent cause of disability in adults. Pain may be generated by different anatomical structures such as the facet joint. However, nowadays pain produced by the facet joint has no clinical diagnosis. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to propose a clinical diagnostic scale for lumbar facet syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was conducted by means of 6 phases as follows, Phase 1, a systematic review of the literature was performed regarding the clinical diagnosis of facet-based lumbar pain based on the PRISMA checklist; Phase 2, a list of signs and symptoms proposed for diagnosis lumbar pain of facet origin was made. Phase 3, the list of signs and symptoms found was submitted to a committee of experts to discriminate the most significant signs and symptoms, these were linked to general sociodemographic variables to develop an evaluation questionnaire; Phase 4, the evaluation questionnaire was applied, including those selected signs and symptoms to a group of patients with clinical diagnosis of facet disease lumbar pain and who underwent a selective facet block. Phase 5, under standard technique selective facet block and subsequent postoperative clinical control at 1 month. Phase 6, given pre and postsurgical results associated with signs present in the patients we propose a clinical scale of diagnosis scale. Descriptive statistics and Stata 12.0 were used as statistical software. RESULTS: A total of 36 signs and symptoms were found for the diagnosis of lumbar facet syndrome that were submitted to the group of experts, where a total of 12 (8 symptoms and 4 signs) were included for the final survey. 31 patients underwent selective lumbar facet blockade, mostly women, with an average of 60±11.5 years, analogous visual scale of preoperative pain of 8/10, postoperative of 1.7/10, the signs and symptoms most frequently found included in a diagnostic scale were: 3 symptoms 1) axial or bilateral axial lumbar pain, 2) improvement with rest, 3) absence of root pattern, may have pseudoradicular pattern, however, the pain is greater lumbar than pain in the leg and 3 clinical signs 1) Kemp sign, 2) pain induced in joint or transverse process, 3) facet stress sign or Acevedo sign. CONCLUSION: The clinical diagnosis of lumbar facet pain is still debated. Few diagnostic scales have been postulated, with little or no external validity, so the present study proposes a diagnostic scale consisting of 3 symptoms and 3 clinical signs.

A symptom-based continuum of psychosis explains cognitive and real-world functional deficits better than traditional diagnoses.

BACKGROUND: Patients with psychotic spectrum disorders share overlapping clinical/biological features, making it often difficult to separate them into a discrete nosology (i.e., Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM]). METHODS: The current study investigated whether a continuum classification scheme based on symptom burden would improve conceptualizations for cognitive and real-world dysfunction relative to traditional DSM nosology. Two independent samples (New Mexico [NM] and Bipolar and Schizophrenia Network on Intermediate Phenotypes [B-SNIP]) of patients with schizophrenia (NM: N = 93; B-SNIP: N = 236), bipolar disorder Type I (NM: N = 42; B-SNIP: N = 195) or schizoaffective disorder (NM: N = 15; B-SNIP: N = 148) and matched healthy controls (NM: N = 64; B-SNIP: N = 717) were examined. Linear regressions examined how variance differed as a function of classification scheme (DSM diagnosis, negative and positive symptom burden, or a three-cluster solution based on symptom burden). RESULTS: Symptom-based classification schemes (continuous and clustered) accounted for a significantly larger portion of captured variance of real-world functioning relative to DSM diagnoses across both samples. The symptom-based classification schemes accounted for large percentages of variance for general cognitive ability and cognitive domains in the NM sample. However, in the B-SNIP sample, symptom-based classification schemes accounted for roughly equivalent variance as DSM diagnoses. A potential mediating variable across samples was the strength of the relationship between negative symptoms and impaired cognition. CONCLUSIONS: Current results support suggestions that a continuum perspective of psychopathology may be more powerful for explaining real-world functioning than the DSM diagnostic nosology, whereas results for cognitive dysfunction were sample dependent.

Comparisons of severity classification systems for oropharyngeal dysfunction in children with cerebral palsy: Relations with other functional profiles.

This study aimed to investigate the relationships between various classification systems assessing the severity of oropharyngeal dysphagia and communication function and other functional profiles in children with cerebral palsy (CP). This is a prospective, cross-sectional, study in a university-affiliated, tertiary-care hospital. We recruited 151 children with CP (mean age 6.11 years, SD 3.42, range 3-18yr). The Eating and Drinking Ability Classification System (EDACS) and the dysphagia scales of Functional Oral Intake Scale (FOIS), Swallow Function Scales (SFS), and Food Intake Level Scale (FILS) were used. The Communication Function Classification System (CFCS) and Viking Speech Scale (VSS) were employed to classify communication function and speech intelligibility, respectively. The Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) with the Gross Motor Function Classification System (GFMCS) and the Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) level were also assessed. Spearman correlation analysis to investigate the associations between measures and univariate and multivariate logistic regression models to identify significant factors were used. Median GMFCS level of participants was III (interquartile range II-IV). Significant dysphagia based on EDACS level III-V was noted in 23 children (15.2%). There were strong to very strong relationships between the EDACS level with the dysphagia scales. The EDACS presented strong associations with MACS, CFCS, and VSS, a moderate association with GMFCS level, and a moderate to strong association with each domain of the PEDI. In multivariate analysis, poor functioning in EDACS were associated with poor functioning in gross motor and communication functions.

An Analysis and Evaluation of the Theory of Unpleasant Symptoms.

The Theory of Unpleasant Symptoms was developed to enhance understanding of relationships among multiple symptoms and symptom experiences. Although the theory has been used to guide research, no formal critique of the theory has been published since 2000. This article comprehensively analyzes and evaluates the theory using Fawcett and DeSanto-Madeya's framework. Although its semantic clarity, semantic and structural consistency, and parsimony could be improved, the theory demonstrates good social and theoretical significance, testability, and empirical and pragmatic adequacy. Understanding multiple patient symptoms is essential, and the theory demonstrates that nurses should focus on multiple rather than individual symptoms.

Assessment of Atrial Fibrillation-Specific Symptoms Before and 2 Years After Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Do Patients and Physicians Differ in Their Perception of Symptom Relief?

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient-reported and physician-assessed atrial fibrillation (AF)-related symptoms after AF ablation. BACKGROUND: Success of AF ablation is usually defined as freedom from AF, although symptom relief is often patients' desire. METHODS: Symptom relief was assessed as perceived by patients using the short, validated, AF-specific symptom questionnaire AF6 and as classified by physicians using the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) classification at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months after AF ablation. Recurrence of arrhythmia was documented by continuous electrocardiographic monitoring. RESULTS: In total, 54 patients completed the 24-month follow-up. All 6 items on the AF6, AF6 sum score, and EHRA class improved significantly over time. The greatest improvement was seen during the first 6 months after ablation, but AF6 scores showed continued improvement up to 12 months, in contrast to EHRA class. There was a low correlation between AF6 score and EHRA class, but the predictive ability was low. Both AF6 scores and EHRA class were significantly correlated with AF burden at all times after ablation. A change of >9 points in AF6 sum score corresponded to a meaningful reduction in symptom severity. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported and physician-assessed outcomes were both useful in assessing symptom relief after AF ablation, although patient-reported outcomes were more sensitive tools. There was also a discrepancy between patient-reported and physician-assessed outcomes after ablation. Freedom from AF and a low AF burden most often resulted in a reduction of symptoms, but symptom relief also occurred despite little effect on the arrhythmia.

Adjustment disorder: Empirical study of a new diagnostic concept for ICD-11 in the general population in Lithuania.

OBJECTIVE: Adjustment disorder (AD) is one of the most debated diagnoses in psychiatry since it has been recognised as vaguely defined and causing a lot of difficulties in clinical practice. We aimed to analyse the structure of adjustment disorder based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-11 proposals by the WHO ICD-11 Working Group on the Classification of Disorders Specifically Associated with Stress in the general population in Lithuania. Three structural models of adjustment disorder were tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). METHOD: Data from the sample of 649 participants who experienced at least one significant stressor during the last two years was included in CFA analysis. Stressor exposure and AD symptoms were measured with the Lithuanian version of the Adjustment Disorder New Module (ADNM-20). RESULTS: The CFA analysis revealed that the two core factor model of the AD with two core symptoms: preoccupation and failure to adapt fitted data the best in contrast to other two models. CONCLUSION: The study supports the ICD-11 proposal for the structure of adjustment disorder with two core symptoms: preoccupation and failure to adapt. Further studies are needed to analyse the structure of AD in other populations.