| Autor: |
Gallai, Virgilio, Sarchielli, Paola, Alberti, Andrea, Pedini, Mauro, Gallai, Beatrice, Rossi, Cristiana, Cittadini, Elisabetta, the Collaborative Group for the Application of IHS Criteria of the Italian Society for the Study of Headache |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Headache: The Journal of Head & Face Pain; Nov2002, Vol. 42 Issue 10, p1016-1024, 9p |
| Abstrakt: |
Background.—The actual application of the current International Headache Society (IHS) diagnostic criteria in clinical practice has not been investigated thoroughly. Objectives.—To develop a computerized, structured, medical record based exclusively on the IHS classification system. Design and Method.—We tested the computerized structured record by entering and analyzing data reported on the case sheets of 500 consecutive patients attending nine headache centers in Italy. All clinical diagnoses in the study were made according to current IHS criteria. The rate of concordance between the diagnosis provided by the computerized structured record and that reported by clinicians on the case sheets was calculated, and reasons for any discrepancies between the two diagnoses were analyzed. Results.—Concordance between the two diagnoses was found in 345 of 500 cases examined (69%). In the remaining 155 cases, diagnoses reached with the computerized structured record and case sheets were impossible or discordant with respect to the diagnoses made by the clinician. In 144 of these cases (28.8%), this was due to missing information or errors in the diagnosis recorded by the clinicians on the patient case sheet. In particular, the diagnosis could not be reached using the computerized structured record in 105 cases (20.6%) because of a lack of one or more data needed in formulating a correct diagnosis according to the IHS operational criteria for one of the primary headache disorders. In the remaining 41 cases some data were missing, but the data available were sufficient to reach a diagnosis according to the IHS criteria. Moreover, the diagnoses reached using the computerized structured record were not in agreement with those made by the clinicians in another 39 cases (7.9%) due to an incorrect interpretation by the clinicians of the data reported on the patients' case sheets. In only 2.2% of the cases (n = 11) misdiagnoses were due to errors of... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Plný text