PubMed · 10184555
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
K W Barwick. 1995. Using a new classification for chronic hepatitis.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10184555/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
We assessed the external validity of a prediction rule for nonseminomatous testicular cancer patients. The rule was developed to predict the probability of retroperitoneal metastases being benign (only necrosis/fibrosis) after chemotherapy treatment. Patients with a high probability of benign residual masses might be offered surveillance as opposed to patients with a low probability, who should undergo retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND). We compared the observed histology with the predicted probability in 105 patients with good prognosis germ cell cancer who underwent RPLND between 1995 and 1998. We found that predicted probabilities higher than 5% were in good agreement with the observed frequencies of benign masses. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.76, suggesting that the rule could reasonably discriminate between benign masses and tumour. However, nearly all predicted probabilities (n=101) were lower than 70%, which might be considered as the lowest value at which surveillance offers a reasonable alternative to RPLND. Further, 35% of patients currently under surveillance (84 out of 241) had predicted probabilities lower than 70%. In conclusion, the clinical relevance of the prediction rule was limited for the patients who underwent RPLND; use of the rule would change the policy from RPLND to surveillance in only a few. On the other hand, the rule might support selection of patients for RPLND, who currently are under surveillance.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Morton's neuroma is a common problem. Progress has been made in the understanding of this frequent problem since Morton's original description and treatment. Today, we accept a failure rate of 15% to 20%, even in the best of series. We must ask ourselves if this is good enough. What can we do to achieve an acceptable failure of 5% or less? How can we improve? Only through an honest analysis and discussion can we improve the care that we deliver.