Você pesquisou por y - Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2011;33(3):133-138
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032011000300006
PURPOSE: to evaluate the quality of life of patients with osteoporosis and osteopenia followed-up at outpatient clinics specialized in osteoporosis and climacterium and to compare it to that of patients with normal bone mineral density (BMD). METHODS: cross-sectional case series, observational study, which intended to analyze the quality of life of women with osteopenia and osteoporosis by the Medical Outcomes Study 36 Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire. We evaluated 124 postmenopausal women divided into three groups: 55 patients with a densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis, 35 with osteopenia and 34 who presented a normal BMD. The three groups were compared in terms of demographic data, clinical and life style characteristics and the different domains of SF-36. RESULTS: patients from the osteopenia and normal BMD groups presented lower age (56.7±7.1 and 52.9±5.4 years), greater body mass index (BMI) (28.6±3.7 and 30.9±5.1 kg/m²) and shorter time since menopause (8.4±5.9 and 5.8±4.5 years) than those from the osteoporosis group (61.8±10.1 years, BMI of 25.7±5.3 kg/m², 15.5±7.5 years, respectively; p<0.05). According to SF-36, there was no significant difference between groups concerning the domains, except for the vitality domain, which was found to be superior in the osteoporosis group. Regarding the personal impression about their health, a greater percentage of the patients who considered it to be good was from the osteoporosis group and, of the patients who considered it bad, a smaller percentage belonged to the osteopenia group. CONCLUSION: the quality of life was similar in women with osteoporosis and osteopenia when compared to women with normal BMD, except for the vitality domain, which, paradoxically, was superior in patients with osteoporosis.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2011;33(3):133-138
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032011000300006
PURPOSE: to evaluate the quality of life of patients with osteoporosis and osteopenia followed-up at outpatient clinics specialized in osteoporosis and climacterium and to compare it to that of patients with normal bone mineral density (BMD). METHODS: cross-sectional case series, observational study, which intended to analyze the quality of life of women with osteopenia and osteoporosis by the Medical Outcomes Study 36 Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire. We evaluated 124 postmenopausal women divided into three groups: 55 patients with a densitometric diagnosis of osteoporosis, 35 with osteopenia and 34 who presented a normal BMD. The three groups were compared in terms of demographic data, clinical and life style characteristics and the different domains of SF-36. RESULTS: patients from the osteopenia and normal BMD groups presented lower age (56.7±7.1 and 52.9±5.4 years), greater body mass index (BMI) (28.6±3.7 and 30.9±5.1 kg/m²) and shorter time since menopause (8.4±5.9 and 5.8±4.5 years) than those from the osteoporosis group (61.8±10.1 years, BMI of 25.7±5.3 kg/m², 15.5±7.5 years, respectively; p<0.05). According to SF-36, there was no significant difference between groups concerning the domains, except for the vitality domain, which was found to be superior in the osteoporosis group. Regarding the personal impression about their health, a greater percentage of the patients who considered it to be good was from the osteoporosis group and, of the patients who considered it bad, a smaller percentage belonged to the osteopenia group. CONCLUSION: the quality of life was similar in women with osteoporosis and osteopenia when compared to women with normal BMD, except for the vitality domain, which, paradoxically, was superior in patients with osteoporosis.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2011;33(3):139-143
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032011000300007
PURPOSE: to determine the accuracy of fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) and of core-needle biopsy (CNB) in diagnosing breast lumps and breast cancer. METHODS: this was a cross-sectional, retrospective and descriptive study based on the review of medical records. FNAB and CNB were carried out sequentially according to the routine of the Mastology Service. Both percutaneous procedures were applied to 233 patients during the period from March 2005 to February 2007. Women aged 18 years or more with changes in the clinical and/or image examination of the breast or a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer were included. FNAB and CNB were carried out according to the technical recommendations of the National Institute of Cancer. The percentage of agreement, Cohen's Kappa coefficient, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and the accuracy of FNAB and CNB were calculated, considering the surgical biopsy as the gold standard. RESULTS: the average age of the patients was 49.0 years (±12.7) and the tumors measured 26.9 mm on average (±23.1), being larger than 20 mm in 47.2% of cases. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy were higher for CNB than for FNAB, regardless of the size of the breast lesion. The diagnostic accuracy was 97.5% for CNB and 77.5% for FNAB. CONCLUSION: although the CNB showed higher rates of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy than FNAB for palpable and non-palpable breast lumps, the method remains useful for the minimally invasive diagnosis of mammary lesions, especially when its results are analyzed together with the clinical and imaging examination.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2011;33(3):139-143
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032011000300007
PURPOSE: to determine the accuracy of fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) and of core-needle biopsy (CNB) in diagnosing breast lumps and breast cancer. METHODS: this was a cross-sectional, retrospective and descriptive study based on the review of medical records. FNAB and CNB were carried out sequentially according to the routine of the Mastology Service. Both percutaneous procedures were applied to 233 patients during the period from March 2005 to February 2007. Women aged 18 years or more with changes in the clinical and/or image examination of the breast or a family history of breast and/or ovarian cancer were included. FNAB and CNB were carried out according to the technical recommendations of the National Institute of Cancer. The percentage of agreement, Cohen's Kappa coefficient, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and the accuracy of FNAB and CNB were calculated, considering the surgical biopsy as the gold standard. RESULTS: the average age of the patients was 49.0 years (±12.7) and the tumors measured 26.9 mm on average (±23.1), being larger than 20 mm in 47.2% of cases. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy were higher for CNB than for FNAB, regardless of the size of the breast lesion. The diagnostic accuracy was 97.5% for CNB and 77.5% for FNAB. CONCLUSION: although the CNB showed higher rates of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy than FNAB for palpable and non-palpable breast lumps, the method remains useful for the minimally invasive diagnosis of mammary lesions, especially when its results are analyzed together with the clinical and imaging examination.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2011;33(3):144-149
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032011000300008
PURPOSE: to identify the nomenclature for reporting cervical cytological diagnoses used by laboratories which render services to the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) and which participate in External Quality Monitoring (MEQ). To evaluate the information acquired from gynecologists of the SUS regarding the various diagnostic classifications that they receive in the cervical cytology diagnostic reports. METHODS: we evaluated 94 cytology reports issued by laboratories which participate in the MEQ in the State of São Paulo, Brazil, and 126 questionnaires applied to gynecologists who work for the SUS. RESULTS: out of the 94 laboratories, 81 (86.2%) use one diagnostic classification: 79 (97.6%) use the Brazilian Nomenclature for Cytological Reports (NBLC), 1 (1.2%) uses the Papanicolaou classification and 1 (1.2%) uses the Richart diagnostic classification. Of the 13 (13.8%) laboratories that use more than one classification, 5 use 2 types and 8 use 3 to 4 types, with 9 including the Papanicolau diagnostic classification. The study showed that 52 (55.3%) laboratories presented more than one descriptive diagnosis in the same report. Out of the 126 gynecologists who filled out a questionnaire evaluating the cytopathology reports, 78 (61.9 %) stated that they received laboratory reports with only one diagnostic classification, 48 (38.1%) received reports with more than one classification and 2 received reports with all 4 classifications. Among the 93 (73.8%) gynecologists who prefer only one classification, 56 (60.2%) claimed that the NBLC contributes to clinical practice, 13 (14.0%) opted for the Richart classification, 8 (8.6%) for the Reagan classification and 16 (17.2%) for the Papanicolaou classification. Out of 33 (26.2%) gynecologists who prefer more than one classification, 5 opted for the 4 classifications. CONCLUSIONS: these data suggest that there is still resistance on the part of pathologists about using the official nomenclature in cytology reports for SUS. There is discrepancy between the information that gynecologists would like to see in the reports and the information provided by the pathologists. Greater efforts should be made to stimulate the use of the official nomenclature.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2011;33(3):144-149
DOI 10.1590/S0100-72032011000300008
PURPOSE: to identify the nomenclature for reporting cervical cytological diagnoses used by laboratories which render services to the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS) and which participate in External Quality Monitoring (MEQ). To evaluate the information acquired from gynecologists of the SUS regarding the various diagnostic classifications that they receive in the cervical cytology diagnostic reports. METHODS: we evaluated 94 cytology reports issued by laboratories which participate in the MEQ in the State of São Paulo, Brazil, and 126 questionnaires applied to gynecologists who work for the SUS. RESULTS: out of the 94 laboratories, 81 (86.2%) use one diagnostic classification: 79 (97.6%) use the Brazilian Nomenclature for Cytological Reports (NBLC), 1 (1.2%) uses the Papanicolaou classification and 1 (1.2%) uses the Richart diagnostic classification. Of the 13 (13.8%) laboratories that use more than one classification, 5 use 2 types and 8 use 3 to 4 types, with 9 including the Papanicolau diagnostic classification. The study showed that 52 (55.3%) laboratories presented more than one descriptive diagnosis in the same report. Out of the 126 gynecologists who filled out a questionnaire evaluating the cytopathology reports, 78 (61.9 %) stated that they received laboratory reports with only one diagnostic classification, 48 (38.1%) received reports with more than one classification and 2 received reports with all 4 classifications. Among the 93 (73.8%) gynecologists who prefer only one classification, 56 (60.2%) claimed that the NBLC contributes to clinical practice, 13 (14.0%) opted for the Richart classification, 8 (8.6%) for the Reagan classification and 16 (17.2%) for the Papanicolaou classification. Out of 33 (26.2%) gynecologists who prefer more than one classification, 5 opted for the 4 classifications. CONCLUSIONS: these data suggest that there is still resistance on the part of pathologists about using the official nomenclature in cytology reports for SUS. There is discrepancy between the information that gynecologists would like to see in the reports and the information provided by the pathologists. Greater efforts should be made to stimulate the use of the official nomenclature.
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2011;33(3):151-151
Summary
Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2011;33(3):151-151