Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to R A McNutt.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
STUDY DESIGN: Telephone interviews were conducted with a random sample of adults in 4437 North Carolina households. The response rate was 79%. OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of low back pain and the correlates of care-seeking in a defined population were examined. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous research on low back pain has used varying definitions of the illness of low back pain, and has admixed patients with acute and chronic low back pain. Acute low back pain was examined in this study as a distinct phenomenon separate from chronic low back pain. METHODS: Respondents completed a detailed interview regarding the occurrence of and care sought for back pain in 1991. Acute back pain was defined as functionally limiting pain lasting less than 3 months. RESULTS: From this sample, 485 individuals had at least one occurrence of acute severe low back pain in 1991, representing 7.6% of the adult population. Symptoms were reported less commonly in individuals older than age 60 years (5% vs. 8.5%) and in nonwhites compared with whites (5% vs. 8.5%). Thirty-nine percent of those with back pain sought medical care; 24% sought care initially from an allopathic physician, 13% from a chiropractor, and 2% from other providers. More prolonged pain, more severe pain, and sciatica were associated with care-seeking. Gender, income, age, rural residence, and health insurance status did not correlate with the decision to seek medical care. Younger age, male gender, and nonjob-related pain did correlate with the decision to seek care from a chiropractor. CONCLUSIONS: Acute back pain is common. Care is often sought regardless of income and insurance status. Seeing a health care provider for acute back pain may not be discretionary from the perspective of the patient.
BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether patients with proximal deep-vein thrombosis should be treated with streptokinase followed by intravenous heparin or with intravenous heparin alone. Published reports indicate that streptokinase plus heparin increases the risk of bleeding, including central nervous system bleeding and death, but decreases the risk of postphlebitic syndrome. Previous recommendations regarding these treatments have not considered patients' preferences or the values they attach to the possible outcomes of therapy. METHODS: We used decision analysis to combine published estimates of the probabilities of various adverse outcomes of treatment (bleeding, pulmonary embolism, postphlebitic syndrome, and death) with the values patients placed on these outcomes. We questioned 36 patients about the values they attached to each outcome. Sixteen patients had had deep-vein thrombosis, and 20 had not. RESULTS: By the values they attached to the outcomes, all 36 patients indicated that they were unwilling to accept an increased risk of death to avoid postphlebitic syndrome. According to the decision analysis, heparin alone was the better treatment for all 36 patients. As compared with streptokinase plus heparin, heparin alone provided 29 days of additional life expectancy over the predicted life expectancy of 20 years. Although the difference between the two treatments was small, heparin alone remained the better treatment in sensitivity analyses that examined the reasonable ranges of probabilities of the clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The values patients placed on the outcomes of treatment for deep-vein thrombosis support the use of heparin alone over the combined use of streptokinase and heparin.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the characteristics of good peer reviewers. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of data gathered during a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: The Journal of General Internal Medicine. PARTICIPANTS: 226 reviewers of 131 consecutively submitted manuscripts of original research. 201 (91%) completed the review and submitted a curriculum vitae. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The quality of each review was judged on a scale from 1 to 5 by an editor who was blinded to the identity of the reviewer. Reviewer characteristics were taken from the curricula vitae. 86 of the 201 reviewers (43%) produced good reviews (a grade of 4 or 5). Using logistic regression, the authors found that when a reviewer was less than 40 years old, from a top academic institution, well known to the editor choosing the reviewer, and blinded to the identity of the manuscript's authors, the probability that he or she would produce a good review was 87%, whereas a reviewer without any of these characteristics had a 7% probability of producing a good review. Other characteristics that were significant only on bivariate analysis included previous clinical research training, additional postgraduate degrees, and more time spent on the review. There was a negative but statistically nonsignificant association between academic rank and review quality: 37% of full professors, 39% of associate professors, and 51% of assistant professors or fellows produced good reviews (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Good peer reviewers for this journal tended to be young, from strong academic institutions, well known to the editors, and blinded to the identity of the manuscript's authors.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Because febrile infants with no obvious source of bacterial infection may have bacteremia, and because bacteremia is difficult to diagnose on clinical grounds, we used decision analysis to evaluate whether such infants should be treated with antibiotics, tested further, or sent home. Using a simple decision tree, we found that the decision to give empiric antibiotic treatment is the decision of choice. The difference in quality-adjusted life expectancy between the "best" and "worst" decisions was only 11 days. However, this difference translated to prevention of death or permanent disability in 60 cases per 100,000 febrile children. Further, empiric treatment remained the best management alternative unless the probability of bacteremia was less than 1.4% (less than any published prevalence), or the efficacy of treatment was less than 21%. Our analysis demonstrated that a test with far greater sensitivity than leukocyte count or other tests currently in use is needed to justify testing rather than treating empirically. Further, an enormous patient population would be needed to find a difference of both clinical and statistical significance between treated and untreated patients in a controlled trial. In the absence of such trials, we recommend blood culture and empiric antibiotic treatment of all infants at risk for occult bacteremia.
Early in the evolution of medical decision analysis, computers were employed to remove the tedium and insure the accuracy of repetitive calculations, a capacity they still serve today. However, user interfaces could be so complex as to be overwhelming, except for the capable few who designed them or used them often. HyperDecision is a hypercard-based decision analysis program with a simple user interface. A comprehensive tutorial and generic decision tree are integrated so that the fledgling user, whether medical student or seasoned clinician lacking evolved computer and/or decision analysis skills, can reap the benefits of computer support in their clinical practice. In the current political environment surrounding the practice of medicine, having easily accessible tools for both teaching and using medical decision analysis to evaluate and present the rational for medical decisions has taken on a new importance which the medical community must remain abreast of as we move toward the 21st century.
Peer reviewers are blinded sometimes to authors' and institutions' names, but the effects of blinding on review quality are not known. We, therefore, conducted a randomized trial of blinded peer review. Each of 127 consecutive manuscripts of original research that were submitted to the Journal of General Internal Medicine were sent to two external reviewers, one of whom was randomly selected to receive a manuscript with the authors' and institutions' names removed. Reviewers were asked, but not required, to sign their reviews. Blinding was successful for 73% of reviewers. Quality of reviews was higher for the blinded manuscripts (3.5 vs 3.1 on a 5-point scale). Forty-three percent of reviewers signed their reviews, and blinding did not affect the proportion who signed. There was no association between signing and quality. Our study shows that, in our setting, blinding improves the quality of reviews and that research on the effects of peer review is possible.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: Expert testimony in malpractice cases is often subjective and biased. Decision-analytic techniques might provide an objective basis for such testimony. DESIGN: Case report. This article reports the case of a patient with chest pain that resulted in a malpractice suit alleging a delay in diagnosis of coronary artery disease. SETTING: The case occurred in a private practice; the expert witnesses and the decision analysis originated from a university teaching hospital. METHODS: A decision tree and threshold analysis were used to define the thresholds of disease probability at which either testing or treatment should be implemented. The expert testimony of two witnesses that exercise stress testing was the standard of care was compared with the results of the decision analysis. MAIN RESULTS: Decision analysis supported the view that cardiac catheterization would have been the more appropriate test. CONCLUSIONS: Techniques of decision analysis provide a structured and quantitative basis for empirical judgment and may help to minimize current problems with expert testimony.
Congenital infection by human cytomegalovirus (CMV) is presently the leading infectious cause of mental retardation and congenital deafness in the United States. Live CMV vaccines in healthy adults have been shown to be safe and to induce immune responses similar to those that occur with natural CMV infection. Yet, only recently has a live CMV vaccine been tested for its protective ability. To evaluate the cost benefit and effectiveness of the proposed live CMV vaccine, we compared the following strategies: routine immunization, selective immunization of those women screened and found to be seronegative, and no immunization. Our results show that, when direct costs alone are considered, routine immunization of healthy women aged 15-25 years is cost beneficial even in populations with CMV seroprevalence as high as 87%. In populations with lower seroprevalence (55%-70%), for every 100,000 women immunized, more than 24 cases of symptomatic congenital CMV infection at birth and a similar number of cases with late sequelae (mainly deafness) would be prevented yearly. Such immunization would result in a net annual saving of $2.5 million.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.