First clinical judgment by primary care physicians distinguishes well between nonorganic and organic causes of abdominal or chest pain.

Medical Outpatient Clinic, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland.
Journal of General Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.42). 09/1997; 12(8):459-65. DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.00083.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the accuracy of a preliminary diagnosis based solely on patient history and physical examination in medical outpatients with abdominal or chest pain.
Prospective observational study.
General medical outpatient clinic in a university teaching hospital.
One hundred ninety new, consecutive patients with a mean age of 44 years (SD = 14 years, range 30-58 years) with a main complaint of abdominal or chest pain.
The preliminary diagnosis, established on the basis of patient history and physical examination, was compared with a final diagnosis, obtained after workup at completion of the chart. A nonorganic cause was established in 66 (59%) of 112 patients with abdominal pain and in 65 (83%) of 78 with chest pain. The preliminary diagnosis of "nonorganic" versus "organic" causes was correct in 79% of patients with abdominal pain and in 88% of patients with chest pain. An "undoubted" preliminary diagnosis predicted a correct assessment in all patients with abdominal pain and in all but one patient with chest pain. Overall, only 4 patients (3%) were initially incorrectly diagnosed as having a nonorganic cause of pain rather than an organic cause. In addition, final nonorganic diagnosis (n = 131) was compared with long-term follow-up by obtaining information from patients and, if necessary, from treating physicians. Follow-up information, obtained for 71% of these patients after a mean of 29 months (range 18-56 months) identified three other patients that had been misdiagnosed as having abdominal pain of nonorganic causes. Compared with follow-up, the diagnostic accuracy for nonorganic abdominal and chest pain at chart completion was 93% and 98%, respectively.
A preliminary diagnosis of nonorganic versus organic abdominal or chest pain based on patient history and physical examination proved remarkably reliable. Accuracy was almost complete in patients with an "undoubted" preliminary diagnosis, suggesting that watchful waiting can be recommended in such cases.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Physical symptoms account for more than half of all outpatient visits, yet the predominant disease-focused model of care is inadequate for many of these symptom-prompted encounters. Moreover, the amount of clinician training dedicated to understanding, evaluating, and managing common symptoms is disproportionally small relative to their prevalence, impairment, and health care costs. This narrative review regarding physical symptoms addresses 4 common epidemiologic questions: cause, diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy. Important findings include the following: First, at least one third of common symptoms do not have a clear-cut, disease-based explanation (5 studies in primary care, 1 in specialty clinics, and 2 in the general population). Second, the history and physical examination alone contribute 73% to 94% of the diagnostic information, with costly testing and procedures contributing much less (5 studies of multiple types of symptoms and 4 of specific symptoms). Third, physical and psychological symptoms commonly co-occur, making a dualistic approach impractical. Fourth, because most patients have multiple symptoms rather than a single symptom, focusing on 1 symptom and ignoring the others is unwise. Fifth, symptoms improve in weeks to several months in most patients but become chronic or recur in 20% to 25%. Sixth, serious causes that are not apparent after initial evaluation seldom emerge during long-term follow-up. Seventh, certain pharmacologic and behavioral treatments are effective across multiple types of symptoms. Eighth, measuring treatment response with valid scales can be helpful. Finally, communication has therapeutic value, including providing an explanation and probable prognosis without "normalizing" the symptom.
    Annals of internal medicine 10/2014; 161(8):579-586. DOI:10.7326/M14-0461 · 16.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Polymorbid patients, diverse diagnostic and therapeutic options, more complex hospital structures, financial incentives, benchmarking, as well as perceptional and societal changes put pressure on medical doctors, specifically if medical errors surface. This is particularly true for the emergency department setting, where patients face delayed or erroneous initial diagnostic or therapeutic measures and costly hospital stays due to sub-optimal triage. A "biomarker" is any laboratory tool with the potential better to detect and characterise diseases, to simplify complex clinical algorithms and to improve clinical problem solving in routine care. They must be embedded in clinical algorithms to complement and not replace basic medical skills. Unselected ordering of laboratory tests and shortcomings in test performance and interpretation contribute to diagnostic errors. Test results may be ambiguous with false positive or false negative results and generate unnecessary harm and costs. Laboratory tests should only be ordered, if results have clinical consequences. In studies, we must move beyond the observational reporting and meta-analysing of diagnostic accuracies for biomarkers. Instead, specific cut-off ranges should be proposed and intervention studies conducted to prove outcome relevant impacts on patient care. The focus of this review is to exemplify the appropriate use of selected laboratory tests in the emergency setting for which randomised-controlled intervention studies have proven clinical benefit. Herein, we focus on initial patient triage and allocation of treatment opportunities in patients with cardiorespiratory diseases in the emergency department. The following five biomarkers will be discussed: proadrenomedullin for prognostic triage assessment and site-of-care decisions, cardiac troponin for acute myocardial infarction, natriuretic peptides for acute heart failure, D-dimers for venous thromboembolism, C-reactive protein as a marker of inflammation, and procalcitonin for antibiotic stewardship in infections of the respiratory tract and sepsis. For these markers we provide an overview on physiopathology, historical evolution of evidence, strengths and limitations for a rational implementation into clinical algorithms. We critically discuss results from key intervention trials that led to their use in clinical routine and potential future indications. The rational for the use of all these biomarkers, first, tackle diagnostic ambiguity and consecutive defensive medicine, second, delayed and sub-optimal therapeutic decisions, and third, prognostic uncertainty with misguided triage and site-of-care decisions all contributing to the waste of our limited health care resources. A multifaceted approach for a more targeted management of medical patients from emergency admission to discharge including biomarkers, will translate into better resource use, shorter length of hospital stay, reduced overall costs, improved patients satisfaction and outcomes in terms of mortality and re-hospitalisation. Hopefully, the concepts outlined in this review will help the reader to improve their diagnostic skills and become more parsimonious laboratory test requesters.
  • 10/2007; 9(88). DOI:10.1016/S0211-3449(07)74715-X

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Sep 17, 2014