Search

Purpose: To investigate the prevalence of symptoms and signs of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and to compare them with the otolaryngologist-estimated prevalence of the most common LPR-related symptoms and signs. Methods: The prevalence of LPR symptoms and signs was determined through the clinical data of 403 patients with a positive LPR diagnosis on hypopharyngeal–esophageal multichannel intraluminal impedance pH monitoring. The otolaryngologist-estimated prevalence was assessed through an international survey investigating the thoughts of 824 otolaryngologists toward LPR symptom and sign prevalence. The determination of potential over- or underestimation of LPR symptoms and findings was investigated through a data comparison between the 'true' prevalence and the 'estimated prevalence' of symptoms and findings by otolaryngologists. Results: The prevalence of breathing difficulties, coated tongue, and ventricular band inflammation was adequately evaluated by otolaryngologists. The prevalence of hoarseness, throat pain, odynophagia, dysphagia, throat clearing, globus sensation, excess throat mucus, tongue burning, heartburn, regurgitations, halitosis, cough after eating or lying down, and troublesome cough was overestimated by otolaryngologists (p < 0.01), while the prevalence of chest pain was underestimated as an LPR symptom. Most laryngeal signs, e.g., arytenoid/laryngeal erythema, inter-arytenoid granulation, posterior commissure hypertrophy, retrocricoid edema/erythema, and endolaryngeal sticky mucus, were overestimated (p < 0.01). The occurrence of anterior pillar erythema and tongue tonsil hypertrophy was underestimated by participants. Conclusion: Most laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms and laryngeal signs were overestimated by otolaryngologists, while some non-laryngeal findings were underestimated. Future studies are needed to better understand the reasons for this phenomenon and to improve the awareness of otolaryngologists toward the most and least prevalent reflux symptoms and signs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms and signs in healthcare workers (HCW) with Sars-CoV-2. Methods: This was a case-control study. Cases consisted of symptomatic healthcare workers who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, while controls were symptomatic healthcare workers with a negative RT-PCR test. For each symptom, ROCs were plotted. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated using the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. A logistic regression analysis was carried out for calculating the OR (95% CI) for each symptom associated to the SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Results: We recruited 30 cases and 75 controls. Fever had the best sensitivity while dyspnea, anosmia, and ageusia had the highest specificity. The highest PPVs were found again for dyspnea (75%), anosmia (73.7%), and ageusia (66.7%). Lastly, the highest NPVs were related to anosmia (81.4%) and ageusia (79.3%). Anosmia (OR = 14.75; 95% CI: 4.27–50.87), ageusia (OR = 9.18; 95% CI: 2.80–30.15), and headache (OR = 3.92; 95% CI: 1.45–10.56) are significantly associated to SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Conclusions: Anosmia and ageusia should be considered in addition to the well-established fever, cough, and dyspnea. In a resource-limited setting, this method could save time and money. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a pressing need to contribute evidence to the improvement in the early identification of signs and symptoms associated with strokes, and address the treatment-seeking delays. The objective of this study is to describe the knowledge regarding the warning signs and risk factors (RFs) among stroke patients, as well as of their attitudes toward a suspected event, and the analysis of its possible relationship with the socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of these patients. Method: A cross-sectional study was designed, in which all stroke patients admitted consecutively to the Burgos University Hospital (Spain) were included. The principal outcomes were the patient's ability to identify two RFs and two warning signs and the patient's hypothetical response to a possible stroke event. The possible factors associated with the knowledge of warning signs, RFs, and the correct response to a new event were studied using univariate and multivariate regression analysis. Results: A total of 529 patients were included. Having a higher education level or a history of prior stroke were associated with a greater degree of knowledge of warning signs (odds ratio (OR) 3.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.70–5.74, p = 0.003; OR 3.54, 95%CI 2.09–5.99, p ≤ 0.001, respectively), RFs (OR 3.15, 95%CI 1.75–5.67, p = 0.008; OR 4.08, 95%CI 2.41–6.91, p = 0.002, respectively), and the correct response to a possible stroke (OR 1.82, 95%CI 1.16–2.86; p = 0.030; OR 2.11, 95%CI 1.29–3.46, p = 0.022, respectively). Conclusion: Knowledge of warning signs or stroke RFs is low in the hospitalized patients. A previous stroke or secondary/higher education levels are the predictor factors that increase the probability of knowledge of warning signs, RFs, or reaction to possible event. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]