Orientation and mobility outcome measures

Despite orientation and mobility (O&M) being a significant factor determining quality of life of people with low vision or blindness, there are no gold standard measures or agreement on how to measure O&M performance. In the first part of this systematic review, an inventory of O&M outcome measures used by recent studies to assess the performance of orientation and/or mobility of adults with vision impairment (low vision and blindness) is presented. A wide variety of O&M outcome measures have been implemented in different fields of study, such as epidemiologic research and interventional studies evaluating training, assistive technology, vision rehabilitation and vision restoration. The most frequent aspect of outcome measures is efficiency such as time, distance, speed and percentage of preferred walking speed, followed by obstacle contacts and avoidance, and dis/orientation and veering. Other less commonly used aspects are target identification, safety and social interaction and self-reported outcome measures. Some studies employ sophisticated equipment to capture and analyse O&M performance in a laboratory setting, while others carry out their assessment in real-world indoor or outdoor environments. In the second part of this review, the appropriateness of implementing the identified outcome measures to assess O&M performance in clinical and functional O&M practice is evaluated. Nearly a half of these outcome measures meet all four criteria of face validity (either clinical or functional), responsiveness, reliability and feasibility and have the potential to be implemented in clinical or functional O&M practice. The findings of this review confirm the complicated and dynamic nature of O&M. Multiple measures are required in any evaluation of O&M performance to facilitate holistic assessment of O&M abilities and limitations of each individual.     

Severe lumbar spinal stenosis combined with Guillain-Barré syndrome: A case report

BACKGROUNDGuillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare disorder that typically presents with ascending weakness, pain, paraesthesias, and numbness, which mimic the findings in lumbar spinal stenosis. Here, we report a case of severe lumbar spinal stenosis combined with GBS.CASE SUMMARYA 70-year-old man with a history of lumbar spinal stenosis presented to our emergency department with severe lower back pain and lower extremity numbness. Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed the diagnosis of severe lumbar spinal stenosis. However, his symptoms did not improve postoperatively and he developed dysphagia and upper extremity numbness. An electromyogram was performed. Based on his symptoms, physical examination, and electromyogram, he was diagnosed with GBS. After 5 d of intravenous immunoglobulin (0.4 g/kg/d for 5 d) therapy, he gained 4/5 of strength in his upper and lower extremities and denied paraesthesias. He had regained 5/5 of strength in his extremities when he was discharged and had no symptoms during follow-up.CONCLUSIONGBS should be considered in the differential diagnosis of spinal disorder, even though magnetic resonance imaging shows severe lumbar spinal stenosis. This case highlights the importance of a careful diagnosis when a patient has a history of a disease and comes to the hospital with the same or similar symptoms.     

广泛性焦虑障碍心理治疗研究进展

总结广泛性焦虑症(generalized anxiety disorder,GAD)心理治疗方法,分析不同心理治疗的疗效及研究进展,为今后多角度、整合式运用各种心理疗法治疗GAD提供新思路.     

对比四维子宫输卵管超声造影与子宫输卵管造影评估输卵管通畅性效能:Meta分析

目的 采用Meta分析对比四维子宫输卵管超声造影（4D-HyCoSy）与子宫输卵管造影（HSG）评估输卵管通畅性的效能。方法 系统搜索PubMed、Cochrane Library、Embase、Web of Science、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国知网、万方医学网及维普数据库中建库至今有关4D-HyCoSy和/或HSG评估输卵管通畅性的文献。由2名研究人员依据纳入标准和排除标准筛选文献并提取信息；分别计算4D-HyCoSy和HSG评估输卵管通畅性的合并敏感度（SEN）、特异度（SPE）及诊断比值比（DOR），绘制综合受试者工作特征（SROC）曲线，获得曲线下面积（AUC），并以Medcalc 19.1.1统计软件比较AUC。结果 最终纳入19篇文献、1 358例疑似输卵管因素导致不孕患者，其中4篇同时采用4D-HyCoSy及HSG评估输卵管通畅性，10篇仅以4D-HyCoSy评估，5篇仅以HSG评估。Meta分析结果显示，4D-HyCoSy评估输卵管通畅性的合并SEN、SPE及DOR分别为0.92[95%CI（0.91，0.94）]、0.91[95%CI（0.89，0.93）]及115.06[95%CI（54.23，224.10）]；HSG评估输卵管通畅性的合并SEN、SPE及DOR分别为0.84[95%CI（0.81，0.87）]、0.80[95%CI（0.76，0.83）]及28.64[95%CI（10.08，81.35）]。4D-HyCoSy评估输卵管通畅性的AUC为0.98[95%CI（0.96，0.99）]，HSG为0.93[95%CI（0.90，0.95）]，差异有统计学意义（Z=6.97，P<0.01）。结论 4D-HyCoSy评估输卵管通畅性的效能高于HSG。