The utility of ultrasound for diagnosing purulent infections of the upper extremity

Background

The purpose of this study was to determine the test characteristics of formal ultrasound when used to diagnose upper extremity soft tissue abscess in the setting of suspected infection.

Methods

We completed a retrospective chart review of all patients who had formal ultrasounds at our institution for the indication of diagnosing upper extremity abscess between July 2010 and July 2013. Using presence of purulence as the gold standard for diagnosis of abscess, we calculated the test characteristics of ultrasound. We then performed a series of logistic regression models with ultrasound being the independent variable of interest.

Results

Using search criteria consistent with upper extremity abscess, we identified 512 patients who underwent ultrasound examinations during our study period. Of these, 178 met the enrollment criteria. Ultrasound reports revealed 110 negative findings, 37 definitively positive findings, and 31 ambiguous findings. Forty-four patients had a final diagnosis of abscess, and 15 of these patients had negative or ambiguous ultrasounds. The sensitivity of definitively positive ultrasound was 65.9 %. The specificity was 94.0 %. Positive predictive value (PPV) of a definitively positive ultrasound result was 78.4 %, and negative predictive value (NPV) of a definitively negative result was 90 %. Logistic regression demonstrated a statistically significant association between definitively positive ultrasound and abscess, but no association between ambiguous ultrasound and abscess after adjustment for significant covariates.

Conclusions

Ultrasound is not a sensitive method to detect the presence of abscess in the setting of upper extremity infection. However, in this population of patients with suspected abscess, the negative predictive value was high with and without the inclusion of ambiguous results, suggesting reasonable utility of ultrasound as a rule-out test.

Level of Evidence

Diagnostic study, Level II     

Ministry of Health Clinical Practice Guidelines: Anxiety Disorders

The Ministry of Health (MOH) has developed the clinical practice guidelines on Anxiety Disorders to provide doctors and patients in Singapore with evidence-based treatment for anxiety disorders. This article reproduces the introduction and executive summary (with recommendations from the guidelines) from the MOH clinical practice guidelines on anxiety disorders, for the information of SMJ readers. Chapters and page numbers mentioned in the reproduced extract refer to the full text of the guidelines, which are available from the Ministry of Health website: http://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/healthprofessionalsportal/doctors/guidelines/cpg_medical.html. The recommendations should be used with reference to the full text of the guidelines. Following this article are multiple choice questions based on the full text of the guidelines.

1.1 Background information

Anxiety disorders are known to be one of the most prevalent of psychiatric conditions, yet they often remain under-diagnosed and under-treated. Their chronic, disabling symptoms cause considerable burden not only to sufferers but also to their families, and contribute to poorer quality of life and considerable economic burden on society.In many instances, there is a delay in seeking treatment and in some cases such delay may stretch up to nearly ten years. This may result from ignorance of the condition, fear of taking medications, and the stigma of receiving a psychiatric diagnosis, and or having to accept psychiatric treatment.The anxiety disorders include panic disorder with or without agoraphobia, social anxiety disorder, specific phobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. In the clinical evaluation of anxiety disorders, it is important to ascertain the type of anxiety disorder present. This would allow treatment to be targeted at the specific type of disorder.These guidelines are developed to provide practical, evidence-based recommendations to primary care physicians and specialists in psychiatry for the diagnosis and management of the anxiety disorders.The first edition of the guidelines was published in 2003. In this edition, we present data from newer research as well as older data not previously reported in the earlier guidelines.For example, we examine the efficacy of combining medications with psychological therapy over medications alone, or psychological therapy alone. In view of the majority of anxiety sufferers being female we have made recommendations for pharmacotherapy during pregnancy and breastfeeding. As these guidelines are intended for use in the Singapore context, we have omitted treatments that are currently not available in Singapore.

1.2 Aim

These guidelines are developed to facilitate the diagnosis and assessment of the anxiety disorders, and to ensure that their management is appropriate and effective.

1.3 Scope

These guidelines will cover the management of anxiety disorders in adults and address the issues of medication use during pregnancy and breastfeeding.

1.4 Target group

The content of the guidelines will be useful for all doctors treating patients with anxiety disorders. Efforts have been made to ensure that the guidelines are particularly useful for primary care physicians and specialists in psychiatry, including all those involved in the assessment and management of patients with anxiety disorders in the community. The doctor treating the patient is ultimately responsible for clinical decisions made after reviewing the individual patient’s history, clinical presentation and treatment options available.

1.5 Development of guidelines

These guidelines have been produced by a committee of psychiatrists, a clinical psychologist, pharmacist, patient representative, and family practitioners appointed by the Ministry of Health. They were developed by revising the existing guidelines, reviewing relevant literature, including overseas clinical practice guidelines, and by expert clinical consensus of professionals with experience in treating patients in the local setting.The following principles underlie the development of these guidelines:

• Treatment recommendations are supported by scientific evidence whenever possible (randomised controlled clinical trials represent the highest level of evidence) and expert clinical consensus is used when such data are lacking.
• Treatment should maximise therapeutic benefits and minimise side effects.

1.6 What’s new in the revised guidelines

This edition of the guidelines contains updated recommendations based on latest evidence, as well as detailed discussions and recommendations on the management of anxiety disorders in adult populations.The following represent changes to the revised guidelines

• An extensive review of the literature, including new evidence. This involved the re-writing and extensive revision of the chapters.
• Length of treatment, which provides answers to a pertinent question.
• Use of medications during pregnancy and breastfeeding. Given that females are more likely to be at risk of being diagnosed with anxiety disorders, this is an important subject.

We are aware that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (DSM-5) was released in 2013. In DSM-5, post-traumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder have been removed and classified separately from the rest of the anxiety disorders. If we were to adhere strictly to DSM-5, this would entail omitting discussion on post-traumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. As it is our aim to provide an update on the 2003 guidelines, post-traumatic stress disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder have been included in this edition of the guidelines.In addition, anxiety conditions in children are included in DSM-5. Since the present guidelines are meant to address only adult anxiety disorders, guidelines on children’s anxiety conditions are not included here.Hence, for purposes of these guidelines, we will continue to use classifications based on the International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) and DSM-IV-TR criteria.

1.7 Review of guidelines

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are only as current as the evidence that supports them. Users must keep in mind that new evidence could supersede recommendations in these guidelines. The workgroup advises that these guidelines be scheduled for review five years after publication, or when new evidence appears that requires substantive changes to the present recommendations.