China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Thermal Imaging in Detection of Fever for Infectious Diseases
Published in U. Snekhalatha, K. Palani Thanaraj, Kurt Ammer, Artificial Intelligence-Based Infrared Thermal Image Processing and Its Applications, 2023
U. Snekhalatha, K. Palani Thanaraj, Kurt Ammer
It is important to remind the reader that screening and diagnosing are two different procedures. Nicholas J. Wald gave the following definition (1994): “Screening is the systematic application of a test or enquiry to identify individuals at sufficient risk of a specific disorder to warrant further investigation or direct preventive action, amongst persons who have not sought medical attention on account of symptoms of that disorder.” Subjects who proved positive in a screening test must be confirmed as positive cases by a standard diagnostic test. Threshold values for positive cases depend on the applied method of measurement. While the threshold for fever is 38°C for rectal temperature (Niehues, 2013), 37.7°C was reported for oral temperature (Mackowiak, Wasserman, and Levine 1992), and 37.8°C for ear temperature (Cho and Yoon, 2014). The difference of oral and ear temperature to rectal temperature builds the rationale for different fever thresholds. The selection of the threshold for screening should be determined by the rate of false-negative cases.
Ante-natal care, screening and child health surveillance
Published in Jackie Musgrave, Health and Wellbeing for Babies and Children, 2022
Screening tests can help to identify a problem at a very early stage and when put interventions in place can reduce the effects of the condition. The screening can be a blood test or scan, or a series of questions. In order to confirm a diagnosis, it is usual to follow up results from a screening test with more investigations.
Delirium
Published in Henry J. Woodford, Essential Geriatrics, 2022
Any brief cognitive test (see page 110) can potentially be used to help detect delirium. Tests of attention, such as asking the patient to repeat the months of the year backwards (MOTYB), may be more sensitive for delirium detection. A range of delirium screening tools has been created.18 None has perfect sensitivity or specificity. They require a varying amount of time to complete. Data regarding test performance in delirium detection among older people in hospital (mean age 83) is shown in Table 7.2.9 The 4AT (see Appendix A) is recommended for use in acute settings.18 A meta-analysis of 4AT performance suggested an overall sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 88%.19 Following a positive screening test, a formal clinical assessment is then required to confirm the diagnosis. Given the characteristic fluctuation in symptom severity seen in delirium, its presence may be missed at any single point in time. A series of assessments may be required. Beware of deafness or aphasia affecting performance in cognitive testing.
The consideration of post-exercise impact on SCAT3 scores in athletes immediately following a head injury
Published in Brain Injury, 2023
Stephanie Iring-Sanchez, Jenna Tosto, Michelle Favre, Sinae Kim, Michael Falvo, Jorge M. Serrador
A limitation related to concussion diagnosis is the lack of consistency and no clear gold standard. There are different screening exams used in conjunction depending on the physician and study to arrive at a diagnosis. This makes it difficult to interpret results between different studies. While this study reveals several important findings, a limitation is that we did not have a direct diagnosis of concussion. According to the 5th international consensus “SRC may be caused either by a direct blow to the head, face, neck or elsewhere on the body with an impulsive force transmitted to the head.” The players in this study experienced a direct hit/blow to the head (4). Additionally, there were multiple data collection sites requiring multiple administrators able to assess players at each location. All administrators were trained to perform the SCAT3 but a limitation is that this study did not assess inter- and intra-rater reliability.
Model-based screening for pancreatic cancer in Sweden
Published in Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, 2023
Tomasz Draus, Daniel Ansari, Roland Andersson
Between 5% and 10% of pancreatic cancer patients have a familial or genetic background. Surveillance often consists of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) [6]. Other risk factors for pancreatic cancer include diabetes, cigarette smoking, obesity, chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cysts [3]. Approximately half of pancreatic cancer patients have diabetes mellitus at the time of diagnosis, which is predominantly new-onset (<2 years in duration) and likely induced by the tumor [7]. Tumor-derived and immunoregulatory proteins and various liquid biopsy approaches, such circulating tumor DNA, circulating tumor cells and exosomes have been evaluated in diagnostic settings [8–13], but still no blood-based screening test is routinely used for pancreatic cancer in a clinical setting. Screening tests need to fulfill several criteria, including being capable to detect disease in its preclinical state, be safe, inexpensive and easy to administer and lead to improve health outcomes [14].
Electronic Screening to Support Measurement Based Care: Examples from the Field
Published in Military Behavioral Health, 2022
James O. E. Pittman, Erin Almklov, Abigail Angkaw, Neal Doran, Laurie Lindamer, Sonya B. Norman, Kathleen Grubbs, William Wolfe, Niloofar Afari
Barriers to implementing MBC include paperwork burden, amount of time required, lack of personnel resources, limited resources for training, lack of leadership support, and insufficient organizational readiness (Fortney et al., 2017; Lewis et al., 2019). Collecting and recording data in a patient’s electronic health record (EHR) can be burdensome and inefficient (Wray et al., 2018). Common practices in VHA include administering screens via interview or paper and pencil, but both methods use valuable staff time to enter patient self-report information into the EHR. Growing evidence suggests that technology to automate patient self-report health screening may be a solution (Hjermstad et al., 2012; van Duinen et al., 2008). In medicine, “screening” often refers to a test done to find a condition before the onset of symptoms. Conversely, in mental health settings “screening” often refers to a type of brief assessment used to identify and track already identified symptoms or problems; the word “screening” henceforth will refer to this definition. Furthermore, the emphasis of this discussion is on electronic self-report screening, which we define as self-administered (as opposed to clinician-administered) measures completed on an electronic device, such as a desktop, laptop, tablet, or mobile phone.