PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M McNaughton Collins

Publications and source records attributed to M McNaughton Collins.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

French-Canadian linguistic validation of the NIH Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index.

INTRODUCTION: The NIH Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (CPSI) is recommended in the clinical evaluation of men with chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). However, its use is not possible in French speakers, as it has not been validated in this population. We performed a linguistic validation of the CPSI. METHODS: Linguistic translation followed the forward-backward-forward technique and relied on professional medical translators, bilingual health professionals, and patient input. Along with the SF-12, the translated version was administered to a convenience sample of men presenting for pre-vasectomy visits (controls) and to consecutive patients with established CP/CPPS (cases). Men with CP/CPPS were subsequently asked to complete a 14-day retest questionnaire. Psychometric testing addressed standard reliability and validity characteristics. RESULTS: Thirty-six cases and 38 controls with respective mean ages of 46.5 and 44.0 years participated and 33 (91.2%) cases completed the retest questionnaire. Pain (p<0.001), urinary (p<0.001) and quality-of-life (QOL) scale (p<0.001) score means differed between cases and controls. For the same scales, Cronbach's alphas for cases were respectively 0.70, 0.72 and 0.79 versus 0.80, 0.57, and 0.88 for controls. The retest product-moments were 0.83 for pain, 0.55 for urinary, and 0.83 for QOL scales. In cases, strong correlation was noted between QOL and pain scales (r=0.7), and between urinary and pain scales (r=0.6), versus moderate correlation between QOL and urinary scales (r=0.4). Negative correlation was recorded between CPSI scales and SF-12 scales, which ranged from -0.2 to -0.4. CONCLUSIONS: When applied to CPPS and control subjects, the French Canadian CPSI translation demonstrates excellent discriminant properties. Moreover, its reliability and validity characteristics confirm the qualities of the CPSI as a standard evaluative tool for men with CPPS.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Quality of life is impaired in men with chronic prostatitis: the Chronic Prostatitis Collaborative Research Network.

OBJECTIVE: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) impairment may be a central component of chronic prostatitis for men afflicted with this condition. Our objective was to examine HRQOL, and factors associated with HRQOL, using both general and condition-specific instruments. DESIGN: Chronic Prostatitis Cohort (CPC) study. SETTING: Six clinical research centers across the United States and Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred seventy-eight men with chronic prostatitis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The Short Form 12 (SF-12) Mental Component Summary (MCS) and Physical Component Summary (PCS), and the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) were measures used. CPC subjects' MCS scores (44.0 +/- 9.8) were lower than those observed in the most severe subgroups of patients with congestive heart failure and diabetes mellitus, and PCS scores (46.4+/-9.5) were worse than those among the general U.S. male population. Decreasing scores were seen in both domains with worsening symptom severity (P < .01). History of psychiatric disease and younger age were strongly associated with worse MCS scores, whereas history of rheumatologic disease was associated with worse PCS scores. Predictors of more severe NIH-CPSI scores included lower educational level and lower income; history of rheumatic disease was associated with higher scores. CONCLUSIONS: Men with chronic prostatitis experience impairment in the mental and physical domains of general HRQOL, as well as condition-specific HRQOL. To optimize the care of men with this condition, clinicians should consider administering HRQOL instruments to their patients to better understand the impact of the condition on patients' lives.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Diagnosis and treatment of chronic abacterial prostatitis: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The optimal management of chronic abacterial prostatitis is not known. A systematic review of the literature was done to answer the following questions: Are there accurate, reliable tests to diagnose chronic abacterial prostatitis? Are there effective therapies for it? DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE (1966 to 1999), the Cochrane Library, and bibliographies of identified articles and reviews and by contacting an expert STUDY SELECTION: Diagnostic test articles were included if they reported on controlled studies; treatment articles were included if they reported on randomized or controlled trials. No language restrictions were applied. DATA EXTRACTION: For each selected article, two investigators independently extracted key data on study design, patient characteristics, diagnostic test or treatment characteristics, and outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: 19 diagnostic test articles and 14 treatment trials met the inclusion criteria The disparity among studies in design, interventions, and other factors precluded quantitative analysis or pooling of the findings. Diagnostic test articles included 1384 men (mean age, 33 to 67 years) and evaluated infection; inflammation, immunology, and biochemistry; psychological factors; and ultrasonography. Treatment trials included 570 men (mean age, 38 to 45 years) and evaluated medications used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia, anti-inflammatory drugs, antibiotics, thermotherapy, and miscellaneous medications. No trial was done in the United States. CONCLUSIONS: There is no gold-standard diagnostic test for chronic abacterial prostatitis, and the methodologic quality of available studies of diagnostic tests is low. The few treatment trials are methodologically weak and involved small samples. The routine use of antibiotics and alpha-blockers to treat chronic abacterial prostatitis is not supported by the existing evidence.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Comparison of recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

CONTEXT: Multiple treatment options are available for men with prostate cancer, but therapeutic recommendations may differ depending on the type of specialist they consult. OBJECTIVE: To define and contrast the distribution of management recommendations by urologists and radiation oncologists for a spectrum of men with prostate cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Mail survey sent in 1998 to a random sample of physicians in the United States, who were listed as urologists (response rate 64%, n=504) and radiation oncologists (response rate 76%, n=559) in the American Medical Association Registry of Physicians and practicing at least 20 hours per week. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Questionnaire addressing beliefs and practices regarding prostate cancer management. RESULTS: Forty-three percent of radiation oncologists vs 16% of urologists would recommend routine prostate-specific antigen testing for men aged 80 years and older. For men with moderately differentiated, clinically localized cancers, and a more than 10-year life expectancy, 93% of urologists chose radical prostatectomy as the preferred treatment option, while 72% of radiation oncologists believed surgery and external beam radiotherapy were equivalent treatments. For most tumor grades and prostate-specific antigen levels, both specialty groups were significantly more likely to recommend the treatment in their specialty than the other treatment. Both groups reported giving patients similar estimates of the risks of complications due to surgery and radiation. Neither group favored watchful waiting in their treatment management except for a subset of men with life expectancies of less than 10 years and cancers with very favorable prognoses (Gleason score of 3 or 4 and prostate-specific antigen level </=5 ng/mL). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, while urologists and radiation oncologists do agree on a variety of issues regarding detection and treatment of prostate cancer, specialists overwhelmingly recommend the therapy that they themselves deliver. JAMA. 2000;283:3217-3222

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Allopurinol for chronic prostatitis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of allopurinol in the treatment of chronic prostatitis SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were searched in computerized general and specialized databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Prostate Group database), bibliographies of obtained articles, and direct contact with authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized trials of allopurinol versus placebo used to treat patients with chronic prostatitis. Acute prostatitis, bacterial prostatitis, and asymptomatic prostatitis were excluded. The main outcome measure was the change in patient-reported discomfort. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The reviewers extracted the data independently for the outcomes of change in patient-reported discomfort, investigator graded prostate pain, leukocyte counts, and biochemical indices. MAIN RESULTS: Only one trial with 54 men lasting 240 days (with 330 days of follow-up) met study inclusion criteria. There was a statistically significant change favoring allopurinol in patient-reported discomfort between the study and control groups at follow-up. Between days 45-225, the mean score was -0.95 (s.d. 0.19) for the allopurinol group (7 men), compared with -0.47 (s.d. 0.21) for the placebo group (7 men). The weighted mean difference (WMD) was -0.48 (95%CI -0.690, -0.270). The mean score between days 45-135 was -1.08 (s.d. 1.29) for the 25 men in the allopurinol group, compared with -0.21 (sd 0.97) for the 14 men in the control group. The WMD was -0.87 (95%CI -1.587, -0.153). The allopurinol group had significantly less investigator graded prostate pain and had lower levels of serum urate, urine urate, and expressed prostatic secretion urate and xanthine. No significant differences between the two groups regarding leukocyte counts were found. No patient receiving allopurinol had any significant side effects. Three patients in the placebo group dropped out because of side effects. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: One small trial of allopurinol for treating chronic prostatitis showed improvements in patient-reported symptom improvement, investigator-graded prostate pain, and biochemical parameters. However, the data provided, the measures used, and the statistics presented do not make these findings convincing that changes in urine and prostatic secretion composition regarding purine and pyrimidine bases resulted in the relief of symptoms. Further studies of allopurinol treatment using standardized and validated outcomes measures and analyses are necessary to determine whether allopurinol is effective.

Allopurinol↗
PubMed2000

Diagnosing and treating chronic prostatitis: do urologists use the four-glass test?

OBJECTIVES: To examine the diagnosis and treatment of chronic prostatitis, we conducted a national mail survey of practicing urologists in 1998. METHODS: Probability samples were drawn from the American Medical Association Registry of Physicians. RESULTS: Five hundred four urologists responded (response rate 64%). Urologists reported seeing a median of 30 patients (interquartile range 11 to 60) newly diagnosed with chronic prostatitis in the previous 12 months. Eighty percent of urologists responded that they "rarely" (47%) or "never" (33%) performed the Meares-Stamey four-glass diagnostic test. Only 4% answered "almost always." Forty percent of urologists responded that they treat "all" their patients with antibiotics and 42% more responded that they treat "more than half" with antibiotics. Physicians who routinely performed the four-glass test did not differ in antibiotic use from those who used the test less often; however, they were more likely to use treatment other than antibiotics. For example, alpha-blockers were used in one half or more of the patients by only 35% of physicians who never do the four-glass test compared with 42% who rarely do the test and 57% who do the test more often (P = 0.002). Results were similar for treatment with natural remedies. CONCLUSIONS: Urologists frequently diagnose chronic prostatitis but rarely perform the four-glass diagnostic test. Use of the four-glass test does not appear to affect urologists' antibiotic treatment patterns. Although bacterial prostatitis is thought to be rare, antibiotic use in the population of men with prostatitis is not. The four-glass test and empiric antibiotics are practices in the diagnosis and treatment of prostatitis that deserve scrutiny.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

Age-specific patterns of prostate-specific antigen testing among primary care physician visits.

BACKGROUND: Early detection of prostate cancer is thought to be effective, and indirect evidence suggests that men aged 50 to 69 years will benefit most while those aged 70 and older will benefit least from it. The goal of our study was to describe usual care patterns for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing by primary care physicians in the United States. METHODS: We analyzed office visits made by adult men to family physicians, general internists, general practitioners, and geriatricians recorded by the 1995 and 1996 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys. Our outcome measure was the probability of a primary care physician ordering a PSA test during a visit. RESULTS: Seventeen percent of the tests reported were among men aged younger than 50 years, 50% were for men aged 50 to 69 years, and 33% were for men aged 70 years and older. The frequency of PSA testing was highest during visits by men aged 60 to 64 years (7.1%), 65 to 69 years (7.0%), 70 to 74 years (7.0%), and 75 to 79 years (6.3%) but lower for men aged older than 80 years (3.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that during the mid-1990s prostate cancer screening decisions by primary care physicians were not sensitive to patients' ages.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Epidemiology of chronic prostatitis.

Although there has been a recent surge of interest in chronic prostatitis, which hopefully will translate into advances in our understanding of the distribution and determinants of this condition, at present there is a scarcity of published epidemiologic research on chronic prostatitis. However, from the currently available epidemiologic studies, it appears that chronic prostatitis is common. In addition, studies of several determinants (i.e. age, race, region, infectious agents, uric acid, sexual activity, autoimmunity, prostate-specific antigen and prostate biopsy) may provide clues to the etiology of chronic prostatitis.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1997

Early detection of prostate cancer. Serendipity strikes again.

An underappreciated characteristic of prostate cancer screening is that it may detect some prostate cancers solely by serendipity or chance. Serendipity, previously described in the detection of colonic neoplasms, could affect prostate cancer detection when a screening test result is abnormal for reasons other than the presence of prostate cancer, but prostate cancer is coincidentally detected during the subsequent evaluation of the abnormal screening result. We reviewed published articles about prostate cancer screening, searching for evidence of serendipity. We defined serendipity in digital rectal examination (DRE) screening as the discovery of a prostate cancer by the random biopsy of an area of the prostate gland other than the palpable suspicious area that prompted the biopsy. We defined serendipity in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening as the discovery of a prostate cancer by the random biopsy of a nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer less than 1.0 cm3 in volume, since tumors less than 1.0 cm3 are generally too small to cause elevated PSA levels. We found that serendipity may be responsible for the detection of more than one quarter of apparently DRE-detected prostate cancers and up to one quarter of apparently PSA-detected cancers. Additionally, serendipity played a larger role in the detection of smaller tumors that are common but of uncertain clinical significance. We conclude that serendipity-detected prostate cancers contribute to an overestimation of the true information value of DRE and PSA screening. Whether serendipity is advantageous in prostate cancer screening depends on the as yet uncertain outcomes for men with smaller prostate cancers. However, given our estimates of the potential magnitude of the impact of serendipity, the currently popular DRE- and PSA-based screening strategy may not be optimal. If smaller prostate cancers are important, then we are not finding enough; if they are unimportant, then we are finding too many that we may feel compelled to treat aggressively.

Humans↗