PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

L Graff

Publications and source records attributed to L Graff.

12 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1991

Probability of appendicitis before and after observation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine patients with abdominal pain for changes in probability of appendicitis during observation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: University-affiliated community hospital. METHODS: 252 patients with abdominal pain who were examined underwent short-term (10.4 hours) observation (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.7, 12.1) before the decision to operate during a one-year period. Alvarado's scoring system and a probability-of-diagnosis nomogram were used to assign scores and estimate probability of appendicitis. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: In the study group, mean score of patients with appendicitis increased after observation from 6.8 (95% CI, 6.2, 7.4) to 7.8 (95% CI, 7.3, 8.3), corresponding to a change in probability of appendicitis from 50% to 65%. Mean score of patients without appendicitis decreased from 3.8 (95% CI, 3.5, 4.1) to 1.6 (95% CI, 1.58, 1.62), corresponding to a change in probability from 35% to 22%. The difference between mean scores for patients with and without appendicitis increased from 2.6 (95% CI, 2.0, 3.2) to 6.2 (95% CI, 6.15, 6.25) during observation. The study group initially had intermediate probability of appendicitis (score, 4.35; 95% CI, 4.04, 4.66) compared with high probability for patients who went directly to surgery after their initial evaluation (63 patients; score, 7.59; 95% CI, 7.05, 8.73) and low probability for patients with abdominal pain who were sent home after their initial evaluation without observation or surgery (2,097 patients; score, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.48, 2.26). CONCLUSION: In this group of patients with intermediate initial probability of appendicitis, observation improved the ability to distinguish patients with from those without appendicitis.

Abdominal Pain↗
PubMed1990

End-tidal CO2 detection.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures↗
PubMed1988

Decision to hospitalize: objective diagnosis-related group criteria versus clinical judgment.

Three hundred fifty patients in an observation unit attached to an emergency department received diagnostic workup of nine critical diagnostic syndromes (abdominal pain, flank pain, headache, possible cerebrovascular accident, chest pain, dizziness or syncope, head injury, seizure, multiple trauma). The decision to hospitalize for acute care after observation for 11.1 +/- 3.9 hours was examined. The objective diagnosis-related group (DRG) criteria for admission were compared retrospectively with the physician's clinical judgment of need for hospitalization. Clinical outcome was used to establish the correctness of the decision to hospitalize. Clinical judgment was compared with objective DRG criteria for reliability in predicting the presence of serious pathology necessitating acute care hospitalization; respective values were sensitivity, 100% vs 76%; specificity, 86% vs 80%; positive predictive value, 75% vs 62%; and negative predictive value, 100% vs 89%. The difference between the sensitivity of the two admission criteria was highly significant (P less than 10(-8); chi 2, 26.12). We conclude that the physician's clinical judgment outperforms DRG objective criteria in identifying which patients with critical diagnostic syndromes need acute care hospitalization for emergency medical or surgical therapy.

Decision Making↗