Multiple myeloma: evaluation by CT

Although patients who have multiple myeloma usually have straightforward clinical symptoms and corroborative radiographs, in some instances, these patients will present atypically, with symptoms suggesting active disease but radiographs that are normal or nonspecific. We reviewed the records of 32 patients who had documented multiple myeloma and had undergone CT examinations, assessing the value of those examinations. Although CT is not indicated in all patients who have multiple myeloma, it is especially useful in patients who have bone pain and normal or nonspecific radiographs. CT provided confirmatory information in all cases in which lesions were seen on radiographs. CT also frequently demonstrated a greater extent of disease than could be appreciated on the radiographs.     

Supraacetabular insufficiency fractures

Insufficiency fractures in the supraacetabular region were identified in five women, aged 55-83 years. Factors contributing to the diminished resistance of their bones included postmenopausal osteoporosis, steroid therapy, radiation therapy, and rheumatoid arthritis. The supraacetabular fractures were seen on routine radiographs as hazy bands of sclerosis located immediately above and parallel to the acetabular roof. All five patients had additional fractures in the spine or pelvis. Supraacetabular insufficiency fractures may be an unsuspected cause of hip pain, especially in older women.     

Spectrophotometric determination of cephapirin, a cephalosporin antibacterial.

A simple and specific method for the quantitative determination of cephapirin, a cephalosporin antibacterial, in finished bulk and dosage forms is reported. The method is based on reproducible degradation under controlled conditions to an unidentified species, which is measured spectrophotometrically at 375 nm. The procedure can be performed manually on a short series of samples in about 15 min or can be automated for large runs. Precursors and related substances show minimal interference. The coefficient of variation of the automated system is about 1% within days and 1.3% among days.     

Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field

Policy-makers and managers have always used a wide range of sources of evidence in making decisions about policy and the organization of services. However, they are under increasing pressure to adopt a more systematic approach to the utilization of the complex evidence base. Decision-makers must address complicated questions about the nature and significance of the problem to be addressed; the nature of proposed interventions; their differential impact; cost-effectiveness; acceptability and so on. This means that Cochrane-style reviews alone are not sufficient. Rather, they require access to syntheses of high-quality evidence that include research and non-research sources, and both qualitative and quantitative research findings. There is no single, agreed framework for synthesizing such diverse forms of evidence and many of the approaches potentially applicable to such an endeavour were devised for either qualitative or quantitative synthesis and/or for analysing primary data. This paper describes the key stages in reviewing and synthesizing qualitative and quantitative evidence for decision-making and looks at various strategies that could offer a way forward. We identify four basic approaches: narrative (including traditional 'literature reviews' and more methodologically explicit approaches such as 'thematic analysis', 'narrative synthesis', 'realist synthesis' and 'meta-narrative mapping'), qualitative (which convert all available evidence into qualitative form using techniques such as 'meta-ethnography' and 'qualitative cross-case analysis'), quantitative (which convert all evidence into quantitative form using techniques such as 'quantitative case survey' or 'content analysis') and Bayesian meta-analysis and decision analysis (which can convert qualitative evidence such as preferences about different outcomes into quantitative form or 'weights' to use in quantitative synthesis). The choice of approach will be contingent on the aim of the review and nature of the available evidence, and often more than one approach will be required.