screening practice
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

196
(FIVE YEARS 74)

H-INDEX

18
(FIVE YEARS 4)

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdullah Alzahrani ◽  
Daniyah Alfitni ◽  
Maysaa Aqeel ◽  
Ebtesam Alsulami

Abstract Aim: GDM patients were associated to develop T2DM but mostly failed to undergo screening after delivery. This study aims to examine the practice of T2DM screening and prevalence of developing T2DM among women who had GDM in King Abdulaziz Medical City (KAMC), Saudi Arabia. Methods: Retrospective study involving 642 pregnant women with GDM. Medical records on screenings conducted, delivery mode, GDM and diabetes family history were collected and investigated. Statistical analysis was conducted. Frequencies and percentages were used for categorical variables while means and SD for continuous. Chi-square and t-test were used to establish relationship of categorical and comparing two group means, respectively. Results: Patients were 98.8% Saudi nationals, mean weight, height, parity and number of pregnancies were 76.96 kg, 2.74 m, 3.37 and 1.35, respectively. Majority were obese (56.9%), SVD (56.4%) mode of delivery and good lifestyle (91.4%) as management practice. OGTT was used for screening T2DM with 0 hr fasting and 2-hrs after consuming 75g of glucose, physician ordered 6 weeks after delivery. Only 20% had screening for T2DM and 3.9% developed postpartum diabetes with high number of women not returning for ordered OGTT screening (65.6%). Significant predictors identified were parity and mode of delivery for development of T2DM, while only mode of delivery for both screening for T2DM and management of GDM.Conclusion: Low prevalence of developing T2DM but high number of women failed to follow the ordered OGTT screening. Effort on the implementation of OGTT screening for T2DM needs improvement.


BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. n1872
Author(s):  
Karoline Freeman ◽  
Julia Geppert ◽  
Chris Stinton ◽  
Daniel Todkill ◽  
Samantha Johnson ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective To examine the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) for the detection of breast cancer in mammography screening practice. Design Systematic review of test accuracy studies. Data sources Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2010 to 17 May 2021. Eligibility criteria Studies reporting test accuracy of AI algorithms, alone or in combination with radiologists, to detect cancer in women’s digital mammograms in screening practice, or in test sets. Reference standard was biopsy with histology or follow-up (for screen negative women). Outcomes included test accuracy and cancer type detected. Study selection and synthesis Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. A single reviewer extracted data, which were checked by a second reviewer. Narrative data synthesis was performed. Results Twelve studies totalling 131 822 screened women were included. No prospective studies measuring test accuracy of AI in screening practice were found. Studies were of poor methodological quality. Three retrospective studies compared AI systems with the clinical decisions of the original radiologist, including 79 910 women, of whom 1878 had screen detected cancer or interval cancer within 12 months of screening. Thirty four (94%) of 36 AI systems evaluated in these studies were less accurate than a single radiologist, and all were less accurate than consensus of two or more radiologists. Five smaller studies (1086 women, 520 cancers) at high risk of bias and low generalisability to the clinical context reported that all five evaluated AI systems (as standalone to replace radiologist or as a reader aid) were more accurate than a single radiologist reading a test set in the laboratory. In three studies, AI used for triage screened out 53%, 45%, and 50% of women at low risk but also 10%, 4%, and 0% of cancers detected by radiologists. Conclusions Current evidence for AI does not yet allow judgement of its accuracy in breast cancer screening programmes, and it is unclear where on the clinical pathway AI might be of most benefit. AI systems are not sufficiently specific to replace radiologist double reading in screening programmes. Promising results in smaller studies are not replicated in larger studies. Prospective studies are required to measure the effect of AI in clinical practice. Such studies will require clear stopping rules to ensure that AI does not reduce programme specificity. Study registration Protocol registered as PROSPERO CRD42020213590.


Dementia ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 147130122110353
Author(s):  
Kristin Zeiler ◽  
Göran Karlsson ◽  
Martin Gunnarson

Since 2017, opportunistic screening for cognitive impairment takes place at the geriatric ward of a local hospital in Sweden. Persons above the age of 65 who are admitted to the ward, who have not been tested for cognitive impairment during the last six months nor have a previously known cognitive impairment, are offered the Mini-Mental State Examination and the Clock-Drawing Test. This article analyses what the opportunistic screening practice means for patients and healthcare professionals. It combines a phenomenologically-oriented focus on subjectivity and sense-making with a focus that is inspired by science and technology studies on what the tests become within the specific context in which they are used, which allows a dual focus on subjectivity and performativity. The article shows how the tests become several different, not infrequently seemingly contradictory, things: an offer, an important tool for knowledge-production, something unproblematic yet also emotionally troubling, something one can fail and an indicator that one belongs to a risk group and needs to be tested. Further, the article shows how the practice is shaped by the sociocultural context. It examines the role of the affective responses to the test for subjectivity – particularly patient subjectivity – and offers a set of recommendations, if this practice were to expand to other hospitals.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elvis Anyaehiechukwu Okolie ◽  
Debra Barker ◽  
Lawrence Achilles Nnyanzi ◽  
Seun Anjorin ◽  
David Aluga ◽  
...  

Heliyon ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. e07534
Author(s):  
Halmata Mohamadou ◽  
Tagne Simo Richard ◽  
Grace Nganwa Kembaou ◽  
Erika Myriam Baiguerel ◽  
Lydiane C.C. Ndopwang ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 2740
Author(s):  
Efrat L. Amitay ◽  
Tobias Niedermaier ◽  
Anton Gies ◽  
Michael Hoffmeister ◽  
Hermann Brenner

The success of a colonoscopy in detecting and removing pre-cancerous and cancerous lesions depends heavily on the quality of bowel preparation. Despite efforts, 20–44% of colonoscopy participants have an inadequate bowel preparation. We aimed to assess and compare risk factors for inadequate bowel preparation and for the presence of advanced colorectal neoplasms in routine screening practice. In this cross-sectional study, among 8125 participants of screening colonoscopy in Germany with a comprehensive assessment of sociodemographic factors, lifestyle and medical history, we examined factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation and with findings of advanced neoplasms using adjusted log-binomial regression models. Among the identified risk factors assessed, three factors were identified that were significantly associated with inadequate bowel preparation: age ≥ 70 years (adjusted prevalence ratios, aPR, 1.50 95%CI 1.31–1.71), smoking (aPR 1.29 95%CI 1.11–1.50) and abdominal symptoms (aPR 1.14 95%CI 1.02–1.27). The same risk factors were also associated with the prevalence of advanced neoplasms in our study (aPR 1.72, 1.62 and 1.44, respectively). The risk factors associated with inadequate bowel preparation in this study were also associated with a higher risk for advanced neoplasms. Inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy might lead to missed colorectal cancer (CRC) precursors and the late diagnosis of CRC. People at high risk of advanced neoplasms are in particular need of enhanced bowel preparation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document