PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

James G Dolan

Publications and source records attributed to James G Dolan.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

Optimal management of adults with pharyngitis--a multi-criteria decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current practice guidelines offer different management recommendations for adults presenting with a sore throat. The key issue is the extent to which the clinical likelihood of a Group A streptococcal infection should affect patient management decisions. To help resolve this issue, we conducted a multi-criteria decision analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. METHODS: We defined optimal patient management using four criteria: 1) reduce symptom duration; 2) prevent infectious complications, local and systemic; 3) minimize antibiotic side effects, minor and anaphylaxis; and 4) achieve prudent use of antibiotics, avoiding both over-use and under-use. In our baseline analysis we assumed that all criteria and sub-criteria were equally important except minimizing anaphylactic side effects, which was judged very strongly more important than minimizing minor side effects. Management strategies included: a) No test, No treatment; b) Perform a rapid strep test and treat if positive; c) Perform a throat culture and treat if positive; d) Perform a rapid strep test and treat if positive; if negative obtain a throat culture and treat if positive; and e) treat without further tests. We defined four scenarios based on the likelihood of group A streptococcal infection using the Centor score, a well-validated clinical index. Published data were used to estimate the likelihoods of clinical outcomes and the test operating characteristics of the rapid strep test and throat culture for identifying group A streptococcal infections. RESULTS: Using the baseline assumptions, no testing and no treatment is preferred for patients with Centor scores of 1; two strategies--culture and treat if positive and rapid strep with culture of negative results--are equally preferable for patients with Centor scores of 2; and rapid strep with culture of negative results is the best management strategy for patients with Centor scores 3 or 4. These results are sensitive to the priorities assigned to the decision criteria, especially avoiding over-use versus under-use of antibiotics, and the population prevalence of Group A streptococcal pharyngitis. CONCLUSION: The optimal clinical management of adults with sore throat depends on both the clinical probability of a group A streptococcal infection and clinical judgments that incorporate individual patient and practice circumstances.

Adult↗

Patient priorities in colorectal cancer screening decisions.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening guidelines in the United States recommend that decisions about screening should incorporate patient preferences, but little is known about how patients make the trade-offs inherent in choosing one of the five currently recommended screening programmes. STUDY POPULATION: Forty-eight primary care patients at average risk for colorectal cancer who completed an experimental shared decision-making intervention based on a multicriteria decision analysis. METHODS: Descriptive analysis of priorities assigned to decision criteria describing the advantages and disadvantages of the five currently recommended colorectal screening programmes in the United States. Criteria were divided into four major criteria - avoid cancer, avoid screening side-effects, avoid false positive test results and the combined importance of other considerations - and three subcriteria: the number of screening tests, test preparation and the test itself. Cluster analysis was used to identify common combinations of priorities within each set of criteria. RESULTS: Patients assigned widely variable priorities to both the criteria and subcriteria: the average range of priorities was 46 on a 100 point priority scale. Cluster analysis identified six different combinations of priorities for the major criteria and four for the subcriteria. The differences in priorities assigned to both the criteria and subcriteria in the clusters were statistically significant with P < 0.0001. CONCLUSIONS: Even within a small group of patients, preferences vary widely regarding trade-offs involved in choosing among the currently recommended colorectal cancer screening programmes in the United States. These results provide empiric support for recommendations to utilize a shared decision-making process when making colorectal cancer screening decisions and highlight the need for additional research into how average risk patients view the trade-offs inherent in choosing a colorectal cancer screening programme.

Aged↗

Recurrent acute pancreatitis possibly induced by atorvastatin and rosuvastatin. Is statin induced pancreatitis a class effect?

CONTEXT: Few data exist about the incidence of drug-induced pancreatitis in the general population. Drugs are related to the etiology of pancreatitis in about 1.4-2% of cases. While statins are generally well tolerated they have been known to be associated with pancreatitis. Acute pancreatitis has been reported in a few cases treated with atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, simvastatin and pravastatin. CASE REPORT: We report the case of a 77-year-old patient who developed acute pancreatitis after treatment with rosuvastatin, which resolved on withdrawal of the medication. She had a similar episode of pancreatitis a year ago precipitated by atorvastatin, which resolved on withdrawal. Extensive workup on both occasions failed to reveal any other etiology for the pancreatitis. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge this is the first report of rosuvastatin-induced pancreatitis. The occurrence of pancreatitis with two different statins in our patient argues that statins induced pancreatitis may be a class-effect of statins. With statin prescriptions on the rise clinicians need to be aware of this complication of statin treatment and remember that the newest statin, rosuvastatin is not dissimilar to the other statins in causing pancreatitis.

Acute Disease↗

Randomized controlled trial of a patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening.

PURPOSE: To conduct a pilot test of a decision aid designed to help patients choose among currently recommended colorectal cancer screening programs. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial comparing a patient decision aid based on multicriteria decision-making theory with a simple educational intervention. PATIENT POPULATION: 96 patients at average risk for colorectal cancer seen in an Internal Medicine practice in Rochester, New York. OUTCOME MEASURES: The two primary outcome measures were patient decision process and the decision outcome. Patient decision process was assessed using the decisional conflict scale. Decision outcome was defined as the proportion of colorectal cancer screening plans carried out. RESULTS: After controlling for the effects of the physicians in a factorial analysis of variance, patients who used the decision aid had lower decisional conflict regarding colorectal cancer screening decisions (F ratio 6.47, P = 0.01) due to increased knowledge, better clarity of values, and higher ratings of the quality of the decisions they made. There was no difference between the groups in decision outcomes: 52% of patients in the control group and 49% in the experimental group completed planned screening tests (P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: In a pilot study, a multicriteria-based patient decision aid for colorectal cancer screening improved patients' decision-making processes but had no effect on the implementation of screening plans.

Aged↗