1. Trang chủ
  2. » Giáo án - Bài giảng

Bài giảng y học chứng cứ bài 5 chứng cứ của các nghiên cứu chuẩn đoán, trình bày cơ sở chuẩn đoán, đánh giá các nghiên cứu chuẩn đoán, sai lầm trong chuẩn đoán, thiết kế cơ bản của một nghiên cứu chuẩn đoán chính xác

53 399 0
Tài liệu được quét OCR, nội dung có thể không chính xác

Đang tải... (xem toàn văn)

Tài liệu hạn chế xem trước, để xem đầy đủ mời bạn chọn Tải xuống

THÔNG TIN TÀI LIỆU

Thông tin cơ bản

Định dạng
Số trang 53
Dung lượng 1,2 MB

Nội dung

Trang 1

Bai 5: CHUNG CU CUA CAC NGHIÊN CƯU CHAN DOAN

Matthew J Thompson

GP & Senior Clinical Scientist

<, Department of Primary Health Care

Trang 2

Nội dung bài học

=» Cơ sở chân đoán

Trang 4

acl hệt các sai lâm trong chân đoán là

ognitive errors:

Conditions of uncertainty

Thinking is pressured Shortcuts are used

(Ann Croskerry Ann Emerg Med 2003)

Những sai lâm trong chan ¢ doan (Diagnostic errors -

The next frontier for Patient Safety Newman- -Toker, JAMA 2009)

airport US hospital deaths from

misdiagnosis per year

Adverse events, negligence cases, serious disability more II ikely to be related to

Trang 5

Diagnostic strategies particularly important

where patients present with variety of conditions

and possible diagnoses

Trang 6

Thi du: nguyén nhan cua ho la gi?

Comprehensive history —~ examination —— differential diagnosis —— final diagnosis

`

Coagralulafieas,

iE only took you

Trang 7

Congratulations, i€ only took you 65299 seconds For example, what causes cougn? Comprehensive history examination diagnosis final diagnosis

Cardiac failure, left sided , Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease , Lung abscess Pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, VWWegener's granulomatosis, Bronchiectasis Pneumonia, Atypical pneumonia, Pulmonary hypertension

Measles, Oropharyngeal cancer, Goodpasture's syndrome

Pulmonary oedema, Pulmonary embolism, Mycobacterium tuberculosis

Foreign body in respiratory tract, Diffuse panbronchiolitis, Bronchogenic carcinoma Broncholithiasis, Pulmonary fibrosis, Pneumocystis carinii

Captopril, Whooping cough, Fasciola hepatica

Gastroesophageal reflux, Schistosoma haematobium, Visceral leishmaniasis Enalapril, Pharyngeal pouch, Suppurative otitis media

Upper respiratory tract infection, Arnold's nerve cough syndrome, Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis Chlorine gas, Amyloidosis, Cyclophosphamide

Tropical pulmonary eosinophilia, Simple pulmonary eosinophilia, Sulphur dioxide Tracheolaryngobronchitis, Extrinsic allergic alveolitis, Laryngitis

Fibrosing alveolitis, cryptogenic, Toluene di-isocyanate, Coal worker's pneumoconiosis Lisinopril, Functional disorders, Nitrogen dioxide, Fentany!

Asthma, Omapatrilat, Sinusitis Gabapentin, Cilazapril

Trang 10

Validity of diagnostic studies

1 Was an appropriate spectrum of patients included?

2 Were all patients subjected to the gold standard’?

Trang 12

1 Was an appropriate spectrum of

patients included?

You want to find out how good chest X rays are for diagnosing pneumonia in the Emergency Department

Best = all patients presenting with

difficulty breathing get a chest X-ray

Spectrum bias = only those patients in

whom you really suspect pneumonia get a

Trang 14

2 Were all patients subjected to the gold Standard?

You want to find out how good Is exercise ECG (‘treadmill test’) for identifying patients with angina

The gold standard is angiography Best = all patients get angiography

Verification (work-up bias) = only patients who have a positive exercise ECG get

Trang 16

3 Was there an independent, blind or objective comparison with the gold

standard’? Observer bias

You want to find out how good Is exercise ECG for identifying patients with angina All patients get the gold standard

(angiography)

Trang 18

Differential Reference Bias

| |

RUN ID Ref Std B

Trang 19

Were all patients subjected to the Gold

Standard?

Trang 20

Go SN

Appraising diagnostic tests '®:

1 Are the results valid?

2 What are the results? mm

3 WIlI they help me

Trang 25

2 by 2 table: sensitivity Disease + _ cv Sensitivity =a/a+c Proportion of people with the disease who

have a positive test result

a highly sensitive test will not miss many

Trang 27

2 by 2 table: specificity

Disease

+ Proportion of people

without the disease

who have a negative

f{es{ result

Trang 28

= Sensitivity is useful to me

= Specificity isnt | want to know about the

false positives

Trang 31

Your father went to his doctor and was told that his test for a disease was positive He is really

worried, and comes to ask you for help!

After doing some reading, you find that for men

of his age:

The prevalence of the disease is 30%

The test has sensitivity of 50% and specificity of 90%

“Son, tell me what’s the chance

Trang 34

Try tt again = A disease with a prevalence of 4% must be diagnosed a It has a sensitivity of 50% and a specificity of 90%

Trang 36

Doctors with an average of 14 yrs experience

answers ranged from 1% to 99%

half of them estimating the probability as 50%

Trang 37

Sensitivity and specificity don't vary

with prevalence

= Test performance can vary in different settings/

patient groups, etc

= Occasionally attributed to differences in disease

Trang 38

2 xX 2 table: positive predictive value Disease + _ cv PPVE=a/a+b Proportion of people

with a positive test who have the disease

Trang 39

2 X 2 table: negative predictive value Disease + b Proportion of people

with a neøafive tesf

Trang 40

What’s wrong with PPV and TY

Trang 42

2 X 2 table: positive likelinood ratio

How much more often a positive test occurs in people with

Trang 43

2 X 2 table: negative likelinood ratio

Disease How less likely a negafive Ray

KT result is in people with the

Trang 45

APPENDICITIS Probability ot decrease increase Fs -45% -30% -15% +15% +30% +45% 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10 | "` OO

Absence of severe right lower McBurney's point tenderness

quadrant tenderness Rovsing's sign

Trang 46

reasoning Pre test 5% Fagan 7 A )

Pretest Likelihood Post-test nomogram

Trang 47

t

) Back >` &2 |x] E đ ` 5? Favorites €4) “ co [ag] + LuJ a 33

ess |) http://www.cebm.net; w| Links ” ^ Sean CATmaker

ie Control-C to copy selected text, Control-V to paste and Control-X to cut.)

TAME 2 OL\Ir diagnosis TARGET DISORDER Analysis 1 of 1 Present Absent Welcome to CEBM

¥velcome to the web site of Centre for Evidence-Based in Oxford in the UK TEST to apply for bursary Teaching Evidence e Workshop, Oxford b 95% Confidence Intervals d

Our broad aim is to develop SENSITIVITY Y

and promote evidence-bas care and provide supporta

resources to doctors and h Pre-test %% ch - research reviews sed Views - latest blog ew EBM tool

LIKELIHOOD RATIO + sens / (1 - LIKELIHOOD RATIO - (1 - sens) /

care professionals to help the highest standards of m Heh FOP Srey 2 CE Nady Pe LAL EO another test in this same show formulae

Please enter the numbers in each group for the diagnostic testin the study VWhen you're ready, click the

CALC button to work out Sensitivity, Specificity, Likelinood Ratios, etc

Learn more about EBM and mu ý

CEBM Bete - Workshop Videos u- EBM in Practice han - Diagnostic Tests sed medicine by the BMJ bi-monthly It alerts clinicians to the latest EBM advances

Cind ait mara

Trang 48

ourvey of 300 US physicians

8 used Bayesian methods, 3 used

ROC curves, 2 used LRs

VWVhy?

Indices unavailable lack of training

not relevant to setting/population

other factors more important

(Reid et al Academic calculations versus clinical judgements: practicing physicians’ use of

Trang 49

Go SN Appraising diagnostic tests '®: 1 Are the results valid? 2 What are the resul(s 2

3 Will they help me

look after my patients?

Trang 50

Reproducibility of the test and interpretation in my setting

Jo results apply to the mix of patients | see?

Will the results change my management?

Ngày đăng: 16/05/2016, 09:22

TỪ KHÓA LIÊN QUAN

TÀI LIỆU CÙNG NGƯỜI DÙNG

TÀI LIỆU LIÊN QUAN

w