PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

H Varonen

Publications and source records attributed to H Varonen.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Comparison of ultrasound, radiography, and clinical examination in the diagnosis of acute maxillary sinusitis: a systematic review.

The objective of this study was to assess the discriminative properties of the methods for diagnosing acute maxillary sinusitis (AMS) in unselected patients. The study design was a systematic review of evaluation studies identified by using Medline, by searching reference lists, by hand searches, and by contacting investigators. Evaluation studies were conducted anywhere in the world. Subjects were adults with suspected AMS. Main outcome measures were: sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios of the primary studies, weighted means of these parameters in each comparison (clinical examination, radiography, and ultrasound compared to a reference standard in diagnosing AMS), and summary ROC curves and their Q* points where sensitivity equals specificity. For the years from 1962 to present, 49 study reports were found; 11 articles on studies that included a total of 1144 patients were eligible. Compared to sinus puncture, radiography was the most accurate method for diagnosing AMS: the Q* point on the summary ROC curve was 0.82 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.78-0.85). Ultrasound was slightly less accurate than radiography compared to sinus puncture (Q* 0.80, 95% CI 0.76-0.83). Only two articles reported clinical examination compared to sinus puncture and the Q* for them was 0.75 (95% 0.58-0.86). Clinical examination is a rather unreliable method for diagnosing AMS, even in the hands of experienced specialists. Using radiography or ultrasound improves the accuracy of diagnosis. The diagnosis of AMS is rarely studied in primary care settings. Future comparative trials should preferably combine diagnosis and treatment, evaluating the two aspects of clinical management as unit.

Acute Disease↗

Diagnosing acute maxillary sinusitis in primary care: a comparison of ultrasound, clinical examination and radiography.

In primary care, acute maxillary sinusitis may be diagnosed by clinical examination, ultrasound or radiography. Previous studies on the diagnostic accuracy of these methods are from secondary care settings and may not be generalisable to primary care. In this study of 39 primary care patients we have compared ultrasound, clinical examination and radiography to sinus irrigation. The sensitivity of ultrasound performed by general practitioners is 61% and specificity is 53%. Diagnostic accuracy does not improve when the general practitioner bases the diagnosis on combination of clinical examination and ultrasound. The most accurate way to diagnose sinusitis is radiography and when the radiographs are interpreted by a radiologist (sensitivity: 61%; specificity: 98%). The accuracy of the ultrasound examination performed by general practitioners is poorer than earlier results from ENT practices. More attention should be paid to education and quality management in the use of ultrasound in primary care.

Acute Disease↗

Practice guidelines in Finland: availability and quality.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the quantity, quality, and availability of practice guidelines currently used in Finland. DESIGN: Cross sectional survey. METHODS: Guidelines from 1989 to 1995 were collected through a database search, through hand searches of the two Finnish general medical journals, and through an inquiry into hospitals, health centres, and medical societies. The content and source of evidence for guidelines was assessed. RESULTS: 719 practice guidelines were found. 578 guidelines (80%) were retrieved by the inquiry, the database search identified 27 (4%) and hand searches 106 (15%). There were 150 guidelines (21%) developed nationally, 120 (17%) regionally, and 449 (62%) locally. The structure and quality of evidence supporting the guidelines was variable and only two guidelines were based on meta-analysis. The references were significantly more often (P < 0.001) documented in the national guidelines (n = 129, 86%) than in the regional or local guidelines (n = 65, 11%). CONCLUSIONS: There are many ways of disseminating guidelines and it may be difficult for end users to find the appropriate guidelines. Sources of evidence were seldom documented in the regional and local guidelines and even some national guidelines lacked all references. More attention should be paid to documenting the level of evidence, structuring the guidelines, and creating optimal strategies for development and dissemination of guidelines.

Cross-Sectional Studies↗

[Systematic review].

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Epidemiologic Methods↗