Accuracy of diagnostic tests for acute diverticulitis that are feasible in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recognition of acute diverticulitis is important to determine an adequate management strategy. Differentiating it from other gastrointestinal disorders is challenging as symptoms overlap. Clinical tests might assist the clinician with this diagnostic challenge. Previous reviews have focussed on prognostic questions and imaging examinations in secondary care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests feasible in primary care for acute diverticulitis in suspected patients. METHOD: We have systematically searched multiple databases for diagnostic accuracy studies of tests feasible in primary care compared to a reference standard in suspected patients. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality with the QUADAS-2 tool. We have meta-analysed the results in the case of more than four studies per index test. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included, all studies were performed in secondary care (median prevalence 48%). Individual signs and symptoms showed a wide range in sensitivity (range 0.00-0.98) and specificity (range 0.08-1.00). Of the four laboratory tests evaluated, CRP >10 mg/l had the highest sensitivity (range 0.89-0.96) with specificity ranging from 0.28 to 0.61. Ultrasound had the highest pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.92 (95% CI 0.86-0.96) and 0.94 (95% CI 0.88-0.97), respectively. CONCLUSION: None of the studies were performed in primary care. Individual signs and symptoms alone are insufficiently informative for acute diverticulitis diagnosis. CRP showed potential for ruling out and ultrasound had a high diagnostic accuracy. More research is needed about the diagnostic accuracy of these tests in primary care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021230622.

What is important to the GP in recognizing acute appendicitis in children: a delphi study.

BACKGROUND: For diagnostic research on appendicitis in registration data, insight is needed in the way GPs generate medical records. We aimed to reach a consensus on the features that GPs consider important in the consultation and medical records when evaluating a child with suspected appendicitis. METHODS: We performed a three-round Delphi study among Dutch GPs selected by purposive sampling. An initial feature list was created based on a literature search and features in the relevant Dutch guideline. Finally, using a vignette describing a child who needed later reassessment, we asked participants to complete an online questionnaire about which consultation features should be addressed and recorded. RESULTS: A literature review and Dutch guideline yielded 95 consultation features. All three rounds were completed by 22 GPs, with the final consensus list containing 26 symptoms, 29 physical assessments and signs, 2 additional tests, and 8 further actions (including safety-netting, i.e., informing the patient about when to contact the GP again). Of these, participants reached consensus that 37 should be actively addressed and that 20 need to be recorded if findings are negative. CONCLUSIONS: GPs agreed that negative findings do not need to be recorded for most features and that records should include the prognostic and safety-netting advice given. The results have implications in three main domains: for research, that negative findings are likely to be missing; for medicolegal purposes, that documentation cannot be expected to be complete; and for clinical practice, that safety-netting advice should be given and documented.

Challenges In Performing An Individual Participant-level Data Meta-analysis.

Individual participant-data meta-analysis (IPDMA) uses data at the participant level to synthesize evidence on clinical decision-making. We discuss the differences from aggregate-data meta-analysis and the advantages and challenges of IPDMA. IPDMA provides an opportunity to study effect modifiers at the participant level and can reduce bias in comparison to aggregate-data meta-analysis. A challenge with IPDMA is that it often requires considerable effort to obtain all the data, and an inability to obtain data for all the studies can lead to availability bias. PATIENT SUMMARY: Systematic reviews of the literature are performed to summarize available evidence regarding clinical decisions. Here we explain the differences between reviews that use aggregated data from published studies and reviews that use the participant-level data from those studies.

Acute Gastroenteritis: A Qualitative Study of Parental Motivations, Expectations, and Experiences During Out-of-Hours Primary Care.

PURPOSE: Acute gastroenteritis is a common infectious disease in children younger than 6 years of age. Although it is a self-limiting disease, it nevertheless has a high consultation rate in primary care, especially during out-of-hours primary care (OOH-PC). Reasons for this high consultation rate remain unclear. METHODS: The aim of this qualitative study was to explore parental motivations, expectations, and experiences of OOH-PC contacts for children with acute gastroenteritis. We conducted 14 semistructured interviews with parents who contacted OOH-PC in the Netherlands. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using elements of grounded theory and a constant-comparison approach. RESULTS: Unusual behavior of the sick child, absent micturition, and ongoing vomiting and/or diarrhea, with decreased or no fluid intake, motivated parents to contact OOH-PC. Parents initiated contact to prevent symptom deterioration and to be reassured by a general practitioner (GP), expecting them to perform a thorough physical examination, provide information, and make follow-up plans. Parents reported dissatisfaction if they felt unheard, misunderstood, or not taken seriously, and this increased their likelihood of seeking another consultation. General practitioners did not always meet parental expectations. CONCLUSION: Multiple factors affect the decision for parents to contact OOH-PC for their child with gastroenteritis. There is a mismatch between parental expectations and actions of the GP. Awareness regarding parental feelings and understanding their expectations can guide GPs in the interaction with parents, which could improve satisfaction with primary health care and OOH-PC specifically.

A care substitution service in the Netherlands: impact on referral, cost, and patient satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: In care substitution services, medical specialists offer brief consultations to provide general practitioners (GPs) with advice on diagnosis, treatment, or hospital referral. When GPs serve as gatekeepers to secondary care, these regional services could reduce pressures on healthcare systems. The aim is to determine the impact of implementing a care substitution service for dermatology, orthopaedics, and cardiology on the hospital referral rate, health care costs, and patient satisfaction. METHODS: A before-after study was used to evaluate hospital referral rates and health care costs during a follow-up period of 1 year. The study population comprised patients with eligible International Classification of Primary Care codes for referral to the care substitution service (only dermatology, orthopaedic, cardiology indications), as pre-defined by GPs and medical specialists. We compared referral rates before and after implementation by χ2 tests and evaluated patient preference by qualitative analysis. RESULTS: In total, 4,930 patients were included, 2,408 before and 2,522 after implementation. The care substitution service decreased hospital referrals during the follow-up period from 15 to 11%. The referral rate decreased most for dermatology (from 15 to 9%), resulting in a cost reduction of €10.59 per patient, while the other two specialisms experienced smaller reductions in referral rates. Patients reported being satisfied, mainly because of the null cost, improved organisation, improved care, and positive experience of the consultation. CONCLUSIONS: The care substitution service showed promise for specialisms that require fewer hospital facilities, as exemplified by dermatology.

Irritable bowel syndrome in children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is the most common functional gastrointestinal disorder in children. However, in primary care, it is still unknown whether there are differences in the prognosis of children with IBS compared to other diagnostic subgroups. Therefore, our aim was to describe the course of symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms who either do or do not fulfil the Rome criteria for IBS in primary care. Second, we compared the diagnosis of the general practitioner (GP) with the Rome criteria. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study with 1-year follow-up, including children aged 4-18 years with chronic diarrhoea and/or chronic abdominal pain in primary care. During follow-up, the Rome III questionnaire, Child Health Questionnaire, and symptom questionnaires were completed. RESULTS: A total of 60/104 children (57.7%) fulfilled the Rome criteria for IBS at baseline. Compared to children without IBS, children with IBS were more commonly referred to secondary care, used more laxatives, and more often developed chronic diarrhoea and low physical HRQoL during 1 year. The diagnosis "IBS" from the GP matched the Rome criteria for only 10% of children, as most were diagnosed with "Constipation." CONCLUSIONS: There seems to be a difference in the treatment and prognosis of symptoms and HRQoL between children with and without IBS in primary care. This suggests that it is relevant to differentiate between these groups. The evaluation and use of feasible criteria to define IBS in different healthcare settings remains subject for further studies.

Management of children with non-acute abdominal pain and diarrhea in Dutch primary care: a retrospective cohort study based on a routine primary care database (AHON).

OBJECTIVE: To describe the testing, prescription, referral, and follow-up management by general practitioners (GPs) for children presenting with non-acute abdominal pain and/or diarrhea in primary care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with one-year follow-up. SETTING: Registry data from a Dutch primary care database (AHON) between 2015 and 2019. SUBJECTS: Children aged 4-18 years old who presented by face-to-face consultation in primary care for non-acute abdominal pain and/or diarrhea (>7 days). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We recorded the proportions of children who received (1) diagnostic testing, medicine prescriptions, follow-up consultations, and referrals at their first visit and (2) repeat consultations and referrals by one-year of follow-up. RESULTS: Among the 2200 children (median age, 10.5 years; interquartile range, 7.0-14.6) presenting to a GP with non-acute abdominal pain and/or diarrhea, most reported abdominal pain (78.7%). At the first visit, GPs performed diagnostic testing for 32.2%, provided a prescription to 34.5%, and referred 2.5% to secondary care. Twenty-five percent of the children had a follow-up consultation within four weeks and 20.8% had a repeat consultation between four weeks and one year. Thirteen percent of the children were referred to secondary care by one year. However, only 1% of all children had documentation of an organic diagnosis needing management in secondary care. CONCLUSION: One-third of children received diagnostic testing or a medicine prescription. Few had a follow-up consultation and >10% was referred to pediatric care. Future research should explore the motivations of GPs why and which children receive diagnostic and medical interventions.

General practitioners (GPs) often manage children with non-acute abdominal pain and/or diarrhea, which is typically due to a functional gastrointestinal disorder (FGID).Nearly one-third of all children underwent diagnostic testing at their first visit.Although recommended by the guideline of the Dutch Society of GPs, we found that only a quarter of children received a follow-up consultation.Thirteen percent of children were referred to pediatric specialist care by one year.

Qualitative study evaluating the expectations and experiences of Dutch parents of children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms visiting their general practitioner.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic gastrointestinal symptoms are common among children and affect their daily activities and quality of life. The majority will be diagnosed with a functional gastrointestinal disorder. Effective reassurance and education are, therefore, key components of the physician's management. Qualitative studies have shown how parents and children experience specialist paediatric care, yet less is known about general practitioners (GPs), who manage most cases in the Netherlands and have a more personal and enduring relationship with their patients. Therefore, this study evaluates the expectations and experiences of parents of children visiting a GP for chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative interview study. Online interviews were audio and video recorded, transcribed verbatim and independently analysed by the first two authors. Data were collected and analysed concurrently until data saturation was reached. Using thematic analysis, we developed a conceptual framework reflecting respondent expectations and experiences. We performed a member check of the interview synopsis and the conceptual framework. SETTING: Dutch primary care. PARTICIPANTS: We purposively sampled participants from a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of faecal calprotectin testing in children with chronic gastrointestinal complaints in primary care. Thirteen parents and two children participated. RESULTS: Three key themes emerged: disease burden, GP-patient relationship and reassurance. Often, the experienced disease burden and the pre-existing GP-patient relationship influenced expectations (eg, for further investigations or a sympathetic ear), and when a GP fulfilled these expectations, a trusting GP-patient relationship ensued that facilitated reassurance. We found that individual needs influenced these themes and their interrelationships. CONCLUSION: Insights provided by this framework could help GPs managing children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms in daily practice and may therewith improve the consultation experience for parents. Further research should evaluate whether this framework also holds true for children. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL7690.

Diagnostic accuracy of blood tests of inflammation in paediatric appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Possible childhood appendicitis is a common emergency presentation. The exact value of blood tests is debated. This study sought to determine the diagnostic accuracy of four blood tests (white cell count (WCC), neutrophil(count or percentage), C reactive protein (CRP) and/or procalcitonin) for childhood appendicitis. DESIGN: A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, Web of Science searched from inception-March 2022 with reference searching and authors contacted for missing/unclear data. Eligibility criteria was studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of the four blood tests compared to the reference standard (histology or follow-up). Risk of bias was assessed (QUADAS-2), pooled sensitivity and specificity were generated for each test and commonly presented cut-offs. To provide insight into clinical impact, we present strategies using a hypothetical cohort. RESULTS: 67 studies were included (34 839 children, 13 342 with appendicitis), all in the hospital setting. The most sensitive tests were WCC (≥10 000 cells/µL, 53 studies sensitivity 0.85 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.89)) and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) (≥7500 cells/µL, five studies sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.94)). Combination of WCC or CRP increased sensitivity further(≥10 000 cells/µL or ≥10 mg/L, individual patient data (IPD) of 6 studies, 0.97 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.99)).Applying results to a hypothetical cohort(1000 children with appendicitis symptoms, of whom 400 have appendicitis) 60 and 40 children would be wrongly discharged based solely on WCC and ANC, respectively, 12 with combination of WCC or CRP.The most specific tests were CRP alone (≥50 mg/L, 38 studies, specificity 0.87 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.91)) or combined with WCC (≥10 000 cells/µL and ≥50 mg/L, IPD of six studies, 0.93 (95% CI 0.91 to 0.95)). CONCLUSIONS: The best performing single blood tests for ruling-out paediatric appendicitis are WCC or ANC; with accuracy improved combining WCC and CRP. These tests could be used at the point of care in combination with clinical prediction rules. We provide insight into the best cut-offs for clinical application. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017080036.

Added value of CRP to clinical features when assessing appendicitis in children.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic value of C-reactive protein (CRP) for appendicitis in children has not been evaluated in primary care. As biochemical responses and differential diagnoses vary with age, separate evaluation in children and adults is needed. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether adding CRP to symptoms and signs improves the diagnosis of appendicitis in children with acute abdominal pain in primary care. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study in Dutch general practice. Data was collected from the Integrated Primary Care Information database between 2010 and 2016. We included children aged 4-18 years, with no history of appendicitis, presenting with acute abdominal pain, and having a CRP test. Initial CRP levels were related to the specialist's diagnosis of appendicitis, and the test's characteristics were calculated for multiple cut-offs. The value of adding CRP to signs and symptoms was analysed by logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 1076 eligible children, among whom 203 were referred for specialist evaluation and 70 had appendicitis. The sensitivity and specificity of a CRP cut-off ≥10 mg/L were 0.87 (95%CI, 0.77-0.94) and 0.77 (95%CI, 0.74-0.79), respectively. When symptoms lasted > 48 h, this sensitivity increased to 1.00. Positive predictive values for CRP alone were low (0.18-0.38) for all cut-off values (6-100 mg/L). Adding CRP increased the area under the curve from 0.82 (95%CI, 0.78-0.87) to 0.88 (95%CI, 0.84-0.91), and decision curve analysis confirmed that its addition provided the highest net benefit. CONCLUSION: CRP adds value to history and physical examination when diagnosing appendicitis in children presenting acute abdominal pain in primary care. Appendicitis is least likely if the CRP value is < 10 mg/L and symptoms have been present for > 48 h.

Course of uncomplicated acute gastroenteritis in children presenting to out-of-hours primary care.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this article is to describe the courses of vomiting, diarrhea, fever, and clinical deterioration, in children with uncomplicated gastroenteritis at presentation. This study was performed as a 7-day prospective follow-up study in an out-of-hours primary care service. The course of vomiting, diarrhea, and fever was analyzed by generalized linear mixed modeling. Because young children (≤ 12 months) and children with severe vomiting are at increased risk of dehydration, the potentially more complicated courses of these groups are described separately. The day(s) most frequently associated with deterioration and the symptoms present in children who deteriorated during follow-up were also described. RESULTS: In total, 359 children presented with uncomplicated acute gastroenteritis to the out-of-hours primary care service. Of these, 31 (8.6%) developed a complicated illness and needed referral or hospitalization. All symptoms decreased within 5 days in most children (> 90%). Vomiting and fever decreased rapidly, but diarrhea decreased at a somewhat slower pace, especially among children aged 6-12 months. Children who deteriorated during follow-up had a higher frequency of vomiting at presentation and higher frequencies of vomiting and fever during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of vomiting, not its duration, appears to be the more important predictor of deterioration. When advising parents, it is important to explain the typical symptom duration and to focus on alarm symptoms. Clinicians should be vigilant for children with higher vomiting frequencies at presentation and during follow-up because these children are more likely to deteriorate.

Cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy in childhood functional constipation: a randomized controlled trial in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Health care expenditures for children with functional constipation (FC) are high, while conservative management is successful in only 50% of the children. The aim is to evaluate whether adding physiotherapy to conventional treatment (CT) is a cost-effective strategy in the management of children with FC aged 4-18 years in primary care. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 8-month follow-up. Costs were assessed from a societal perspective, effectiveness included both the primary outcome (treatment success defined as the absence of FC and no laxative use) and the secondary outcome (absence of FC irrespective of laxative use). Uncertainty was assessed by bootstrapping and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were displayed. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-four children were randomized. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for one additional successfully treated child in the physiotherapy group compared with the CT group was €24,060 (95% confidence interval [CI] €-16,275 to €31,390) and for the secondary outcome €1,221 (95% CI €-12,905 to €10,956). Subgroup analyses showed that for children with chronic laxative use the ICER was €2,134 (95% CI -24,975 to 17,192) and €571 (95% CI 11 to 3,566), respectively. At a value of €1,000, the CEAC showed a probability of 0.53 of cost-effectiveness for the primary outcome, and 0.90 for the secondary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Physiotherapy added to CT as first-line treatment for all children with FC is not cost-effective compared with CT alone. Future studies should consider the cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy added to CT in children with chronic laxative use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The RCT is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR4797), on the 8th of September 2014. The first child was enrolled on the 2nd of December 2014. https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/4654.

Oral ondansetron for paediatric gastroenteritis in primary care: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute gastroenteritis (AGE) affects almost all children aged ≤5 years. In secondary care, ondansetron was found to be effective at reducing vomiting. AIM: To determine the effectiveness of adding oral ondansetron to care as usual (CAU) to treat vomiting in children with AGE attending out-ofhours primary care (OOH-PC). DESIGN AND SETTING: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial at three OOH-PC centres in the north of the Netherlands (Groningen, Zwolle, and Assen), with a follow-up of 7 days. METHOD: Children were included if they were: aged 6 months-6 years; AGE diagnosed by a GP; ≥4 reported episodes of vomiting in the 24 hours before presentation; ≥1 reported episode of vomiting in the 4 hours before presentation; and written informed consent from both parents. Children were randomly allocated to either the control group or the intervention group. The control group received CAU, namely oral rehydration therapy. The intervention group received CAU plus one dose of oral ondansetron (0.1 mg/kg). RESULTS: In total, 194 children were included for randomisation. One dose of oral ondansetron decreased the proportion of children who continued vomiting within 4 hours from 42.9% to 19.5%, with an odds ratio of 0.37 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.20 to 0.72, number needed to treat: four). Ondansetron also decreased the number of vomiting episodes within 4 hours (incidence rate ratio 0.51 [95% CI = 0.29 to 0.88]) and improved overall parental satisfaction with treatment (P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Children with AGE and increased risk of dehydration due to vomiting could be treated with ondansetron in primary care to stop vomiting more quickly and increase parental satisfaction with treatment. These results could be used to improve the quality and efficacy of general practice medicine.

Appendicitis in children with acute abdominal pain in primary care, a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) face a diagnostic challenge when assessing acute abdominal pain in children. However, no information is available on the current diagnostic process or the diagnostic accuracy of history and physical examination in primary care settings. OBJECTIVE: To describe the diagnostic process for acute abdominal pain among children in primary care, focusing on appendicitis, and to assess the diagnostic accuracy of individual clinical features. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study in Dutch primary care, using the Integrated Primary Care Information database. Children aged 4-18 years were included if they had no history of appendicitis and presented with acute abdominal pain during 2010-2016. We evaluated GP management and the diagnostic accuracy of clinical features for appendicitis. Pre- and post-test probabilities were calculated for each clinical feature and compared with the probability of appendicitis after GP assessment. RESULTS: Out of 5691 children, 944 (16.6%) were referred and 291 (5.1%) had appendicitis, of whom 55 (18.9%) were initially misdiagnosed. The pre-test probability (i.e. of appendicitis in evaluated children) varied from 3% (rigidity) to 28% (migratory pain). Concerning post-test probabilities, positive values for rebound pain (32.1%) and guarding (35.8%) and the negative value for right lower quadrant tenderness (0.6%) were superior to overall GP assessment (29.6% and 1.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: GP assessment will miss almost one-fifth of children with appendicitis at their first presentation, and about two-third of GP referrals will be negative. The presence of specific signs can increase or decrease the likelihood of appendicitis, emphasising the importance of a physical examination.

It can be difficult for general practitioners (GPs) to assess acute abdominal pain in children because they must decide whether it is a common minor problem or an uncommon serious problem. However, unlike their hospital counterparts, GPs must often rely on only the history and examination. We, therefore, wanted to gain a better understanding of how GPs assess abdominal pain and the accuracy of the different parts of their assessment. To do this, we looked back at clinical records for children who presented to a GP with acute abdominal pain between 2010 and 2016. The effect of examination on the probability of detecting appendicitis was calculated for several clinical features, and these were compared with the probability of appendicitis after a full GP assessment. Approximately 1 in 20 of the included children was diagnosed with appendicitis, one in five were initially misdiagnosed, and one in four were ultimately referred to the hospital. We show that some signs and symptoms were not particularly useful for assessment, but when they were, signs detected by the GP examining the patient were more useful than symptoms reported by patients or parents. We recommend that GPs provide safety netting advice and examine the abdomen.

Cost-effectiveness of oral ondansetron for children with acute gastroenteritis in primary care: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute gastroenteritis is a common childhood condition with substantial medical and indirect costs, mostly because of referral, hospitalisation, and parental absence from work. AIM: To determine the cost-effectiveness of adding oral ondansetron to care as usual (CAU) for children with acute gastroenteritis presenting to out-of-hours primary care (OOH-PC). DESIGN AND SETTING: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial from December 2015 to January 2018, at three OOHPC centres in the north of the Netherlands (Groningen, Zwolle, and Assen) with a follow-up of 7 days. METHOD: Children were recruited at the OOH-PC and parents kept a parental diary. Inclusion criteria were: aged 6 months-6 years; diagnosis of acute gastroenteritis; at least four reported episodes of vomiting 24 hours before presentation, at least one of which was in the 4 hours before presentation; and written informed consent from both parents. Children were randomly allocated at a 1:1 ratio to either CAU (oral rehydration therapy) or CAU plus one dose of 0.1 mg/kg oral ondansetron. RESULTS: In total, 194 children were included for randomisation. One dose of oral ondansetron decreased the proportion of children who continued vomiting within the first 4 hours from 42.9% to 19.5%, (a decrease of 54.5%), with an odds ratio of 0.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.2 to 0.7; number needed to treat: four). Total mean costs in the ondansetron group were 31.2% lower (€488 [£420] versus €709 [£610]), and the total incremental mean costs for an additional child free of vomiting in the first 4 hours was -€9 (£8) (95% CI = -€41 [£35] to €3 [£3]). CONCLUSION: A single oral dose of ondansetron for children with acute gastroenteritis, given in OOH-PC settings, is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective.

Diagnostic performance of preoperative CT in differentiating between benign and malignant origin of suspicious gallbladder lesions.

PURPOSE: To determine diagnostic performance of preoperative CT in differentiating between benign and malignant suspicious gallbladder lesions and to develop a preoperative risk score. METHOD: All patients referred between January 2007 and September 2018 for suspicion of gallbladder cancer (GBC) or incidentally found GBC were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were excluded when preoperative CT or histopathologic examination was lacking. Two radiologists, blinded to histopathology results, independently reviewed CT images to differentiate benign disease from GBC. Multivariable analysis and internal validation were used to develop a risk score for GBC. Model discrimination, calibration, and diagnostic performance were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 118 patients with 39 malignant (33 %) and 79 benign (67 %) lesions were included. Sensitivity of CT for diagnosing GBC was 90 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 76-97). Specificity rates were 61 % (95 % CI: 49-72) and 59 % (95 % CI: 48-70). Three predictors of GBC (irregular lesion aspect, absence of fat stranding, and locoregional lymphadenopathy) were included in the risk score ranging from -1 to 4. Adequate performance was found (AUC: 0.79, calibration slope: 0.89). In patients allocated >0 points, the model showed higher performance in excluding GBC than the radiologists (sensitivity 92 % [95 % CI: 79-98]). Moreover, when allocated >3 points, the risk score was superior in diagnosing GBC (specificity 99 % [95 % CI: 93-100]). CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity rates of CT for differentiation between benign and malignant gallbladder lesions are high, however specificity rates are relatively low. The proposed risk score may facilitate differentiation between benign and malignant suspicious gallbladder lesions.

Diagnostic accuracy of follow-up tests for detecting colorectal cancer recurrences in primary care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Traditionally, follow-up of colorectal cancer (CRC) is performed in secondary care. In new models of care, the screening part care could be replaced to primary care. We aimed to synthesise evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of commonly used screeners in CRC follow-up applicable in primary care: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), ultrasound and physical examination. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Trial Register and Web of Science databases were systematically searched. Studies were included if they provided sufficient data for a 2 × 2 contingency tables. QUADAS-2 was used to assess methodological quality. We performed bivariate random effects meta-analysis, generated a hypothetical cohort, and reported sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: We included 12 studies (n = 3223, median recurrence rate 19.6%). Pooled estimates showed a sensitivity for CEA (≤ 5 µg/l) of 59% [47%-70%] and a specificity of 89% [80%-95%]. Only few studies reported sensitivities and specificities for ultrasound (36-70% and 97-100%, respectively) and clinical examination (23% and 27%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In practice, GPs could perform CEA screening. Radiological examination in a hospital setting should remain part of the surveillance strategy. Personalised algorithms accounting for recurrence risk and changes of CEA-values over time might add to the diagnostic value of CEA in primary care.

Developing a clinical prediction rule for repeated consultations with functional somatic symptoms in primary care: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Patients who present in primary care with chronic functional somatic symptoms (FSS) have reduced quality of life and increased health care costs. Recognising these early is a challenge. The aim is to develop and internally validate a clinical prediction rule for repeated consultations with FSS. DESIGN AND SETTING: Records from the longitudinal population-based ('Lifelines') cohort study were linked to electronic health records from general practitioners (GPs). PARTICIPANTS: We included patients consulting a GP with FSS within 1 year after baseline assessment in the Lifelines cohort. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome is repeated consultations with FSS, defined as ≥3 extra consultations for FSS within 1 year after the first consultation. Multivariable logistic regression, with bootstrapping for internal validation, was used to develop a risk prediction model from 14 literature-based predictors. Model discrimination, calibration and diagnostic accuracy were assessed. RESULTS: 18 810 participants were identified by database linkage, of whom 2650 consulted a GP with FSS and 297 (11%) had ≥3 extra consultations. In the final multivariable model, older age, female sex, lack of healthy activity, presence of generalised anxiety disorder and higher number of GP consultations in the last year predicted repeated consultations. Discrimination after internal validation was 0.64 with a calibration slope of 0.95. The positive predictive value of patients with high scores on the model was 0.37 (0.29-0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Several theoretically suggested predisposing and precipitating predictors, including neuroticism and stressful life events, surprisingly failed to contribute to our final model. Moreover, this model mostly included general predictors of increased risk of repeated consultations among patients with FSS. The model discrimination and positive predictive values were insufficient and preclude clinical implementation.