OBJECTIVE: Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common birth defect with prevalence of 0.8%. Thanks to tremendous progress in medical and surgical practice, nowadays, >90% of children survive into adulthood. Recently European Society of Cardiology (ESC), American College of Cardiology (ACC)/ American Heart Association (AHA) issued guidelines which offer diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations for the different defect categories. However, the type of technical exams and their frequency of follow-up may vary largely between clinicians and centres. We aimed to present an overview of available diagnostic modalities and describe current surveillance practices by cardiologists taking care of adults with CHD (ACHD).
RESULTS: A questionnaire was used to assess the frequency cardiologists treating ACHD for at least one year administrated the most common diagnostic tests for ACHD. The most frequently employed diagnostic modalities were ECG and echocardiography for both mild and moderate/severe CHD. Sixty-seven percent of respondents reported that they routinely address psychosocial well-being.
CONCLUSIONS: Differences exist between reported current clinical practice and published guidelines. This is particularly true for the care of patients with mild lesions. In addition, some differences exist between ESC and American guidelines, with more frequent surveillance suggested by the Americans.

SARS-CoV-2 infection can cause a range of respiratory sequelae, especially in patients who have had severe Covid-19 pneumonia. Given the high number of patients who have developed this infection over a short period of time, numerous post-Covid-19 follow-up visits are being carried out, but no clinical follow-up protocol has been established to advise on the complementary tests to be performed and the frequency of these procedures. This consensus document was drawn up by professionals from different areas of the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR) in order to assist the clinician in identifying possible respiratory complications that may occur during the months following the acute disease, and to protocolize their follow-up and additional tests to be performed. It recommends examinations and interventions to be carried out at various stages in the post-Covid-19 period, and details the specific objectives of these procedures. Primarily, we aim to ensure that patients receive timely clinical follow-up, following a pre-established schedule that takes into account the severity of the disease and the likelihood of long-term sequelae. Another objective is to avoid overloading the health system by eschewing examinations and/or consultations that are, in many cases, unnecessary. Finally, we define criteria for referring patients with specific established sequelae (interstitial lung disease, pulmonary vascular disease, bronchiectasis) to the corresponding specialized units.

In these guidelines, we aimed to develop evidence-based recommendations for the use of screening questionnaires and diagnostic tests in patients with neuropathic pain (NeP).
We systematically reviewed studies providing information on the sensitivity and specificity of screening questionnaires, and quantitative sensory testing, neurophysiology, skin biopsy, and corneal confocal microscopy. We also analysed how functional neuroimaging, peripheral nerve blocks, and genetic testing might provide useful information in diagnosing NeP.
Of the screening questionnaires, Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4), I-DN4 (self-administered DN4), and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) received a strong recommendation, and S-LANSS (self-administered LANSS) and PainDETECT weak recommendations for their use in the diagnostic pathway for patients with possible NeP. We devised a strong recommendation for the use of skin biopsy and a weak recommendation for quantitative sensory testing and nociceptive evoked potentials in the NeP diagnosis. Trigeminal reflex testing received a strong recommendation in diagnosing secondary trigeminal neuralgia. Although many studies support the usefulness of corneal confocal microscopy in diagnosing peripheral neuropathy, no study specifically investigated the diagnostic accuracy of this technique in patients with NeP. Functional neuroimaging and peripheral nerve blocks are helpful in disclosing pathophysiology and/or predicting outcomes, but current literature does not support their use for diagnosing NeP. Genetic testing may be considered at specialist centres, in selected cases.
These recommendations provide evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for NeP diagnosis. Due to the poor-to-moderate quality of evidence identified by this review, future large-scale, well-designed, multicentre studies assessing the accuracy of diagnostic tests for NeP are needed.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is one of the most frequent reasons children visit a general practitioner (GP). The diagnosis of childhood asthma is challenging, and a variety of diagnostic tests for asthma exist. GPs may refer to clinical practice guidelines when deciding which tests, if any, are appropriate, but the quality of these guidelines is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To determine (i) the methodological quality and reporting of paediatric guidelines for the diagnosis of childhood asthma in primary care, and (ii) the strength of evidence supporting diagnostic test recommendations.
METHODS: Meta-epidemiological study of English-language guidelines from the United Kingdom and other high-income countries with comparable primary care systems including diagnostic testing recommendations for childhood asthma in primary care. The AGREE-II tool was used to assess the quality and reporting of the guidelines. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
RESULTS: Eleven guidelines met the eligibility criteria. The methodology and reporting quality varied across the AGREE II domains (median score 4.5 out of 7, range 2-6). The quality of evidence supporting diagnostic recommendations was generally of very low quality. All guidelines recommended the use of spirometry and reversibility testing for children aged ≥5 years, however, the recommended spirometry thresholds for diagnosis differed across guidelines. There were disagreements in testing recommendations for 3 of the 7 included tests.
CONCLUSIONS: The variable quality of guidelines, lack of good quality evidence, and inconsistent recommendations for diagnostic tests may contribute to poor clinician adherence to guidelines and variation in testing for diagnosing childhood asthma.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury is a common ED presentation. CT-head utilisation is escalating, exacerbating resource pressure in the ED. The biomarker S100B could assist clinicians with CT-head decisions by excluding intracranial pathology. Diagnostic performance of S100B was assessed in patients meeting National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence Head Injury Guideline (NICE HIG) criteria for CT-head within 6 and 24 hours of injury.
METHODS: This multicentre prospective observational study included adult patients presenting to the ED with head injuries between May 2020 and June 2021. Informed consent was obtained from patients meeting NICE HIG CT-head criteria. A venous blood sample was collected and serum was tested for S100B using a Cobas Elecsys-S100 module; >0.1 µg/mL was the threshold used to indicate a positive test. Intracranial pathology reported on CT-head scan by the duty radiologist was used as the reference standard to review diagnostic performance.
RESULTS: This study included 265 patients of whom 35 (13.2%) had positive CT-head findings. Within 6 hours of injury, sensitivity of S100B was 93.8% (95% CI 69.8% to 99.8%) and specificity was 30.8% (22.6% to 40.0%). Negative predictive value (NPV) was 97.3% (95% CI 84.2% to 99.6%) and area under the curve (AUC) was 0.73 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.85; p=0.003). Within 24 hours of injury, sensitivity was 82.9% (95% CI 66.4% to 93.44%) and specificity was 43.0% (95% CI 36.6% to 49.7%). NPV was 94.29% (95% CI 88.7% to 97.2%) and AUC was 0.65 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.74; p=0.046). Theoretically, use of S100B as a rule-out test would have reduced CT-head scans by 27.1% (95% CI 18.9% to 36.8%) within 6 hours and 37.4% (95% CI 32.0% to 47.2%) within 24 hours. The risk of missing a significant injury with this approach would have been 0.75% (95% CI 0.0% to 2.2%) within 6 hours and 2.3% (95% CI 0.5% to 4.1%) within 24 hours.
CONCLUSIONS: Within 6 hours of injury, S100B performed well as a diagnostic test to exclude significant intracranial pathology in low-risk patients presenting with head injury. In theory, if used in addition to NICE HIGs, CT-head rates could reduce by one-quarter with a potential miss rate of <1%.

BACKGROUND: This survey aimed to determine the consensus amongst endodontic specialists in North America and practitioners worldwide to diagnose the pulp and periapical conditions of selected case scenarios encountered in daily practice using the American Association of Endodontists (AAE) pulpal and periapical diagnostic terms. Secondly, an attempt was made to suggest modifications in terms accordingly.
METHODS: A survey designed by two endodontic educators was sent to endodontists in North America and clinicians worldwide through an electronic database. The survey included socio-demographic questions followed by the clinical and radiographic presentations of four clinical scenarios. The participants were then requested to provide the pulpal and the periapical diagnosis of 11 teeth presented in these cases (22 answers in total/participant) using the AAE diagnostic terminology. Cases were designed to include 12 pulpal/periapical conditions as control (non-controversial conditions) and ten so-called controversial conditions. A proportion threshold of 10% was required for any diagnostic term to be reported in this survey. The participants were divided into two groups based on the region of endodontic training and/or practice to \'Specialised North American\' or \'International Practitioners,\' and their results were statistically compared using chi-squared tests (p < .05).
RESULTS: The survey included 421 participants. 74% were endodontists, and 46.1% were amongst the \'Specialised North American\' group and 53.9% amongst the \'International Practitioners\'. Eleven of 12 control conditions had an almost complete agreement amongst the participants regarding the diagnostic terms selected, ranging between 82% and 96%, with no other diagnostic term exceeding the 10% threshold. All the controversial conditions yielded more than one diagnostic term selected/condition that exceeded the 10% threshold for groups (\'Specialised North American\' and \'International practitioners\'). There were no differences in the diagnostic terms selected between the two groups; however, the weight for each term varied between the groups in some cases.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of consensus amongst clinicians, regardless of their training and region of practice, on the appropriate diagnostic terms to be used in particular clinical conditions. More diagnostic terms and modifications in the current terms may be required to establish a more reliable diagnostic terminology.

Recently, faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) have been introduced for investigation of primary care patients with low-risk symptoms of colorectal cancer (CRC), but recommendations vary across the world. This systematic review of clinical practice guidelines aimed to determine how FITs are used in symptomatic primary care patients and the underpinning evidence for these guidelines.
MEDLINE, Embase and TRIP databases were systematically searched, from 1 November 2008 to 1 November 2018 for guidelines on the assessment of patients with symptoms suggestive of CRC. Known guideline databases, websites and references of related literature were searched. The following questions were addressed: (i) which countries use FIT for symptomatic primary care patients; (ii) in which populations is FIT used; (iii) what is the cut-off level used for haemoglobin in the faeces (FIT) and (iv) on what evidence are FIT recommendations based.
The search yielded 2433 publications; 25 covered initial diagnostic assessment of patients with symptoms of CRC in 15 countries (Asia, n = 1; Europe, n = 13; Oceania, n = 4; North America, n = 5; and South America, n = 2). In three countries (Australia, Spain and the UK), FIT was recommended for patients with abdominal symptoms, unexplained weight loss, change in bowel habit or anaemia despite a low level of evidence in the symptomatic primary care patient population.
Few countries recommend FITs in symptomatic patients in primary care either because of limited evidence or because symptomatic patients are directly referred to secondary care without triage. These results demonstrate a clear need for research on FIT in the symptomatic primary care population.

Rapid influenza diagnostic tests that detect the presence of viral antigens are currently used throughout the United States but have poor sensitivity. The objective of this study was to identify if the use of a new highly accurate rapid point of care test would significantly increase the likelihood of guideline consistent care.
We prospectively recruited 300 students at a university health clinic who presented with cough and 1 influenza-like illness symptom between December 2016 and February 2017 to receive care guided by a rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. Of the 300 patients receiving the PCR test, 264 had complete medical records and were compared to 771 who received usual care. We used a logistic regression model to identify whether PCR guided care was associated with guideline consistent care, based on the appropriate use of oseltamivir and antibiotics. We also assessed whether PCR guided care decreased the likelihood of return visits within 2 weeks by patients.
Logistic regression revealed that the odds of receiving guideline supported care did not significantly increase for patients who received PCR guided care (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.24; 95% CI, 0.83-1.88). It significantly decreased the likelihood of an antibiotic prescription (aOR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40-0.94), increased the likelihood of receiving oseltamivir (aOR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.09-2.28), and decreased the likelihood of return visit within 2 weeks (aOR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.81).
The use of a rapid PCR test did not significantly improve the likelihood of guideline consistent care. However, independent of test outcome, patients who received the test were more likely to receive an antiviral and less likely to receive an antibiotic or have a return visit within 2 weeks.

OBJECTIVE: This guideline reviews the clinical indications for first trimester ultrasound.
RESULTS: Proven clinical benefit has been reported from first trimester ultrasound.
METHODS: A Medline search and bibliography reviews in relevant literature provided the evidence.
METHODS: Content and recommendations were reviewed by the principal authors and the Diagnostic Imaging Committee of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Levels of evidence were judged as outlined by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.
CONCLUSIONS:

暂无摘要。