Search

Background: As the endoscope has become more common in the otolaryngologist's office, there is a need to reevaluate the value of traditional nasal examination methods. The objective of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of traditional nasal examination tools compared to those of the rigid endoscope., Methods: A prospective diagnostic study was conducted. Eligible patients with nasal symptoms were recruited and examined using 4 tools: (1) a nasal speculum, (2) an otoscope, (3) a posterior rhinoscopy mirror, and (4) a rigid nasal endoscope. The diagnostic value of each tool was evaluated., Results: There were a total of 53 patients eligible for inclusion in the study. The mean age of all patients was 40.9 years. The most common nasal symptom was nasal obstruction (90.6%). With regard to the tools used in anterior rhinoscopy, the nasal speculum had a sensitivity of 54.69% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 41.75-67.18) and specificity of 88.10% (95% CI: 74.37-96.02); and the otoscope had a sensitivity of 57.81% (95% CI: 44.82-70.06) and specificity of 85.71% (95% CI: 71.46-94.57). After application of topical anesthesia and decongestant, the nasal speculum had a sensitivity of 67.19% (95% CI: 54.31-78.41) and specificity of 85.71% (95% CI: 71.46-94.57); and the otoscope had a sensitivity of 65.62% (95% CI: 52.70-77.05) and specificity of 83.33% (95% CI: 68.64-93.03). The posterior rhinoscopy mirror had a sensitivity of 12.50% (95% CI: 5.18-24.07) and specificity of 94.00% (95% CI: 83.45-98.75). All adverse events in this study were minor., Conclusion: The traditional nasal examination tools exhibited excellent specificity. However, the sensitivity was only average, meaning that they may not be suitable for screening. We do not recommend routine use of topical anesthesia and decongestants when applying these tools, as the application of these agents did not improve the clinical sensitivity or specificity. The posterior rhinoscopy mirror had a lowest sensitivity. We thus do not recommend using a posterior rhinoscopy mirror to rule out pathologies of the posterior nasal cavity.

The aims were to determine reliability and feasibility of measurements to assess quadriceps endurance in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Sixty participants (forced expiratory volume in one second (mean ± standard deviation) 55 ± 18% of predicted, age 67 ± 8 years) were tested in an inter-day, test-retest design. Isokinetic, isometric, and isotonic protocols were performed using a computerized dynamometer. Test-retest relative and absolute reliability was determined via intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV%), and limits of agreement (LoA%). Isokinetic total work demonstrated very high relative reliability (ICC: [95% confidence interval] = 0.98 [0.94-0.99]) and the best absolute reliability (CV% (LoA%) = 6.5% (18.0%)). Isokinetic fatigue index, isometric, and isotonic measures demonstrated low-to-high relative reliability (ICC = 0.64 [0.46-0.77], 0.88 [0.76-0.94], 0.91 [0.85-0.94]), and measures of absolute reliability (CV% (LoA%)) were 20.3% (56.4%), 14.9% (40.8%), and 15.8% (43.1%). For isokinetic total work and isometric measurements, participants performed better on retest (4.8% and 10.0%, respectively). The feasibility was similar across protocols with an average time consumption of less than 7.5 minutes. In conclusion, isokinetic, isometric, and isotonic measurements of quadriceps endurance were feasible to a similar extent and presented low-to-very high relative reliability. Absolute reliability seems to favor isokinetic total work measurements.

Background: Validated quality indicators can help health-care professionals to evaluate their medical practices in a comparative manner to deliver optimal clinical care. No international set of quality indicators to measure the organizational aspects of palliative care settings exists., Aim: To develop and validate a set of structure and process indicators for palliative care settings in Europe., Design: A two-round modified RAND Delphi process was conducted to rate clarity and usefulness of a previously developed set of 110 quality indicators., Setting/participants: In total, 20 multi-professional palliative care teams of centers of excellence from seven European countries., Results: In total, 56 quality indicators were rated as useful. These valid quality indicators concerned the following domains: the definition of a palliative care service (2 quality indicators), accessibility to palliative care (16 quality indicators), specific infrastructure to deliver palliative care (8 quality indicators), symptom assessment tools (1 quality indicator), specific personnel in palliative care services (9 quality indicators), documentation methodology of clinical data (14 quality indicators), evaluation of quality and safety procedures (1 quality indicator), reporting of clinical activities (1 quality indicator), and education in palliative care (4 quality indicator)., Conclusion: The modified RAND Delphi process resulted in 56 international face-validated quality indicators to measure and compare organizational aspects of palliative care. These quality indicators, aimed to assess and improve the organization of palliative care, will be pilot tested in palliative care settings all over Europe and be used in the EU FP7 funded IMPACT project.