PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were part of a prospective multicentre observational study recruiting people with bladder cancer for a urine biomarker study (DETECT II; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02781428). A mixed-methods approach comprising (1) a questionnaire to assess patients' experience with cystoscopy and patients' preference for cystoscopy vs urinary biomarker, and (2) semi-structured interviews to understand patient views, choice and reasons for their preference.
RESULTS: A urine biomarker with an MAS of 90% would be accepted by 75.8% of patients. This was despite a high self-reported prevalence of haematuria (51.0%), dysuria/lower urinary tract symptoms (69.1%) and urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics (25.8%). There was no association between MAS with patient demographics, adverse events experienced, cancer characteristics or distance of patients' home to hospital. The qualitative analysis suggested that patients acknowledge that cystoscopy is invasive, embarrassing and associated with adverse events but are willing to tolerate the procedure because of its high sensitivity. Patients have confidence in cystoscopy and appreciate the visual diagnosis of cancer. Both low- and high-risk patients would consider a biomarker with a reported sensitivity similar to that of cystoscopy.
CONCLUSION: Patients value the high sensitivity of cystoscopy despite the reported discomfort and adverse events experienced after it. The sensitivity of a urinary biomarker must be close to cystoscopy to gain patients' acceptance.
METHODS: The local ethics committee approved this retrospective study and for this type of study formal consent is not required. A total of 42 B3 lesions in 40 women aged 41-77 years were included in our study. All patients underwent CESM 2-3 weeks after the biopsy procedure and surgical excision was subsequently performed within 60 days of the CESM procedure. Three radiologists reviewed the images independently. The results were then compared with histologic findings.
RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for confirmed demonstration of malignancy at CESM were 33.3%, 87.2%, 16.7%, and 94.4% for reader 1; 66.7%, 76.9%, 18.2%, and 96.7% for reader 2; 66.7%, 74.4%, 16.7%, and 96.7% for reader 3. Overall agreement on detection of malignant lesions using CESM among readers ranged from moderate to substantial (κ = .451-.696), for categorization of BPE from moderate to substantial (κ = .562-.711), and for evaluation of lesion intensity enhancement from fair to moderate (κ = .346-.459).
CONCLUSION: In cases of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 1, BI-RADS 2, or BI-RADS 3 results at CESM, follow-up or VAB rather than surgical biopsy might be performed.
Methods: A multi-center cross sectional study was conducted for a month in out-patient wards of hospitals in Khobar, Dammam, Makkah, and Madinah, Saudi Arabia. Patients were randomly selected from a registered patient pools at hospitals and the item-subject ratio was kept at 1:20. The tool was assessed for factorial, construct, convergent, known group and predictive validities as well as, reliability and internal consistency of scale were also evaluated. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were also evaluated. Data were analyzed using SPSS v24 and MedCalc v19.2. The study was approved by concerned ethics committees (IRB-129-25/6/1439) and (IRB-2019-05-002).
Results: A total of 282 responses were received. The values for normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker Lewis index (TLI) and incremental fit index (IFI) were 0.960, 0.979, 0.954 and 0.980. All values were >0.95. The value for root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.059, i.e., <0.06. Hence, factorial validity was established. The average factor loading of the scale was 0.725, i.e., >0.7, that established convergent validity. Known group validity was established by obtaining significant p-value <0.05, for the associations based on hypotheses. Cronbach's α was 0.865, i.e., >0.7. Predictive validity was established by evaluating odds ratios (OR) of demographic factors with adherence score using logistic regression. Sensitivity was 78.16%, specificity was 76.85% and, accuracy of the tool was 77.66%, i.e., >70%.
Conclusion: The Arabic version of GMAS achieved all required statistical parameters and was validated in Saudi patients with chronic diseases.
METHODS: This study was a single centre, retrospective casecontrol study. We recruited 42 patients diagnosed with cardiac tamponade of various aetiologies confirmed by transthoracic echocardiography and 100 controls between January 2011 and December 2015. The ECG criteria of cardiac tamponade we adopted was as follows: 1) Low QRS voltage in a) the limb leads alone, b) in the precordial leads alone or, c) in all leads, 2) PR segment depression, 3) Electrical alternans, and 4) Sinus tachycardia.
RESULTS: Malignancy was the most common causes of cardiac tamponade, the two groups were of similar proportion of gender and ethnicity. We calculated the sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each ECG criteria. Among the ECG abnormalities, we noted the SN of 'low voltage in all chest leads' (69%), 'low voltage in all limb leads' (67%) and 'sinus tachycardia' (69%) were higher as compared to 'PR depression' (12%) and 'electrical alternan' (5%). On the other hand, 'low voltage in all chest leads' (98%), 'low voltage in all leads' (99%), 'PR depression' (100%) and 'electrical alternans' (100%) has highest SP.
CONCLUSION: Our study reaffirmed the findings of previous studies that electrocardiography cannot be used as a screening tool for diagnosing cardiac tamponade due to its low sensitivity. However, with clinical correlation, electrocardiography is a valuable adjuvant test to 'rule in' cardiac tamponade because of its high specificity.
METHODS: The qLAMP assay was optimized targeting the HPV-16 E7 gene. The analytical sensitivity and specificity of the assay were determined using HPV-18 (ATCC® 45152D™), HPV-35 (ATCC® 40330™), HPV-43 (ATCC® 40338™) and HPV-56 (ATCC® 40549™) viral strains and oral bacteria. HPV-16 standard curve was constructed for determination of HPV-16 viral load. The diagnostic performance of the assay was evaluated from 63 OSCC patients comprising 63 tissue, 13 saliva and 49 blood samples, in comparison with p16 immunohistochemistry (IHC), in-house PCR and nested PCR assays.
RESULTS: The detection limit of developed LAMP and PCR assays was 4.68 × 101 and 4.68 × 103 copies/μl, respectively. qLAMP assay enabled detection of positive results as early as 23 min at 67 °C. This assay can detect HPV-16 positivity in 23 % (3/13) saliva and 4.8 % (3/63) tissue samples with the viral load ranging from 4.68 × 101 to 4.68 × 104 copies/μl. HPV-16 positivity was not detected in all the blood samples. The sensitivity and specificity of qLAMP were 100 % in comparison with that of p16 IHC and nested PCR.
CONCLUSION: This study reports for the first time on the use of qLAMP assay for detection of HPV-16 in OSCC in both tissue and saliva as the sample matrix which holds promise in improving the diagnostic application owing to its rapidity, simplicity, high sensitivity and specificity.
Methods: This is a retrospective study done on all patients who presented with acute scrotal pain from January 2013 to December 2017. The data collected included the patient's age, symptoms, the time duration between the onset, ultrasound, and surgery, ultrasound findings with Doppler and the surgical intervention. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 25.0. Data are presented as mean (SD) values. Differences between groups and predictive values were calculated using Chi-square, t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test and are expressed by value with 95% CI.
Results: The total number of patients who presented with acute scrotal pain were 88. Testicular torsion was diagnosed in 55 (62.50%) of the patients, 17 (19.32%) had epididymis-orchitis, 5 (5.68%) had torsion of appendage/cyst, and 11 (12.50%) had normal testis. Ultrasound has a sensitivity and specificity of 88.24% and 68.40% respectively. It is a good tool to detect testicular torsion but it is operator dependent. Positive predictive value was 83.33% and negative predictive value was 76.47%. When ultrasound is combined with clinical findings the rate of negative exploration is reduced by 10%.
Conclusion: Good medical history, appropriate clinical evaluation and performing an ultrasound of the scrotum are important in testicular torsion. US evaluation in cases presented after 24 hours does not change the outcome.
METHODS: A total of 83 normal subjects each underwent two visual field examinations with SITA and SPARK on two separate occasions on a randomly selected eye. The eye examined and the order of strategy examined first was randomised but remained constant over the two perimetry visits.
RESULTS: Visual field examination with SPARK Precision was on average 33% faster than SITA Standard. A positive correlation between group mean sensitivities of SITA Standard and SPARK Precision (rho = 0.713, p