October 14th, 2010 by Toni Brayer, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Tips
Tags: Accurate Diagnosis, Differential Diagnosis, Doctor-Patient Communication, Dr. Toni Brayer, Everything Health, Good Diagnosis, How To Help Your Doctor, Patient-Doctor Partnership, Signs and Symptoms, Thinking Like A Physician
No Comments »
When patients and doctors communicate effectively, the patient has the best result. Not every doctor asks the critical question that can cinch a diagnosis. Yet good communication, coupled with good diagnostic skill can be worth more than $10,000 in tests and referrals to consultants.
You can help your doctor figure out what is going on by thinking and communicating like a physician. Whether you have a new problem or something that has been bothering you for a long time, here are some things that the doctor will want to know:
1. What are the symptoms? Be specific. Don’t just say “Sometimes I have a pain in my stomach.” Since more than 80 percent of health problems can be diagnosed based on information that you provide, make sure you can verbalize what you are feeling. Is it crampy? Does the pain come and go? Where is it located? Is it sharp or more like an ache? These specifics are giving information that your doctor can use as she thinks of the anatomy, physiology and causes of pain.
2. How long has it been going on? Try to be specific. “Awhile” doesn’t mean anything to a doctor. That could be two days or two years. Did it come on gradually or suddenly? There is a different cause for any symptom that is chronic (over several weeks) vs. sudden or acute. Did anything precede the symptoms? Travel, trauma, or life stress can point to different causes. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at EverythingHealth*
October 14th, 2010 by RyanDuBosar in Better Health Network, News, Research
Tags: ACP Internist, American College Of Physicians, Center for Studying Health System Change, Communicating With Colleagues, Communicating With Other Doctors, Communicating With Patients, Doctor-Patient Communication, Doctor-to-Doctor Communication, Doctor-to-Patient Communication, Doctors Who Email, Emailing With Patients, General Medicine, Health Information Technology, Office-Based Physicians, Ryan DuBosar, Who Doctors Email
No Comments »
Only 6.7 percent of office-based physicians routinely e-mailed patients about clinical information in 2008, according to an issue brief from the Center for Studying Health System Change.
Only 34.5 percent of office-based, ambulatory care physicians reported that information technology for communicating with patients about clinical issues via e-mail was available in their practice in 2008. Of that third, 19.5 percent routinely e-mailed patients, or 6.7 percent overall, while the rest were split between occasional use or non-use. The study sample was restricted to 4,258 office-based physicians and the response rate was 62 percent.
In contrast, twice as many physicians spent at least some time each work day e-mailing physicians and other clinicians. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
October 14th, 2010 by RamonaBatesMD in Better Health Network, News, Opinion, Quackery Exposed, Research, Uncategorized
Tags: Aesthetic Society, American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, ASAPS, Chris Woolston, Cosmetic Surgery, Dr. Ramona Bates, Fat Injections, Health Scams, Health Skepticism, LA Times, Stem Cell Face-Lifts, Suture For A Living
No Comments »
It’s been almost a month since the LA Times ran the article by Chris Woolston entitled The Healthy Skeptic: Stem cell face-lifts on unproven ground. It’s well written and presents a fairly balanced view. While I am a fan of stem cell research, I think the “claims” are often put ahead of the science. This is one of those times. I can’t find any decent articles to support the claims of the plastic surgeons doing “stem cell face-lifts.”
My view is echoed in the article (bold emphasis is mine):
Rubin says he’s excited about the potential of stem cells in the cosmetic field and beyond. Still, he adds, there are many unanswered questions about the cosmetic use of stem cells, and anyone who claims to have already mastered the technique is jumping the gun. As Rubin puts it, “Claims are being made that are not supported by the evidence.”
While researchers in Asia, Italy, Israel and elsewhere are reporting decent cosmetic results with injections of stem cell-enriched fat, Rubin says that nobody really knows how the stem cells themselves are behaving. He points out that fat injections alone can improve a person’s appearance, no stem cells needed.
Rubin believes it’s possible that injected stem cells could create new collagen and blood vessels — as they have been shown to do in animals studies — but such results have never been proved in humans. And, he adds, the long-term effects of the procedures are an open question.
Stem cell face-lifts could someday offer real advances, says Dr. Michael McGuire, president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and a clinical associate professor of surgery at UCLA. But he believes that scientists are still at least 10 years away from reliably harnessing stem cells to create new collagen and younger-looking skin. Until then, promises of a quick stem cell face-lift are a “scam,” he says.
The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS) issued a statement two weeks after the article first appeared. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Suture for a Living*
October 14th, 2010 by Steve Novella, M.D. in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion, Quackery Exposed, Research
Tags: Anti-Vaccine Movement, Benefits Vs. Harms, CAM, Complementary And Alternative Medicine, Direct Harm, Dr. Steve Novella, Evidence Based Medicine, Flu Vaccine, Folk Remedies, General Medicine, Normative Beliefs, Placebo Medicine, Public Health, Risk Benefit Ratio, Risk Vs. Harm, SBM, Science and Medicine, Science Based Medicine, Science-Based Evidence, Science-Based Treatments, Unscientific Medical Methods, Unscientific Medicine
1 Comment »
Any promoter of science-based medicine often faces the question: “What’s the harm?” What is the harm if people try treatment modalities that are not based upon good science, that are anecdotal, or provide only a placebo benefit? There are generally two premises to this question. The first is that most “alternative” placebo interventions are directly harmless. The second is that direct harm is the only type worth considering. Both of these premises are wrong.
The pages of Science Based Medicine (SBM) are filled with accounts of direct harm from unscientific treatments: Argyria from colloidal silver, death from chelation therapy, infection or other complications from acupuncture, burns from ear candleing, stroke from chiropractic neck manipulation — the list goes on. You can read anecdotal accounts of such harm on the website, whatstheharm.net.
Of course, as we often point out, harm and risk is only one end of the equation — one must also consider benefit. It is the risk-benefit ratio of an intervention that is important. But generally we are talking about interventions that lack any evidence for benefit, and therefore any risk of harm is arguably unacceptable. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Science-Based Medicine*
October 14th, 2010 by Berci in Better Health Network, Medical Art, Research
Tags: Alexandra Pajak, DNA, Emory Vaccine Center, Genetic Code, HIV Genome, HIV Vaccine, Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Medical Art, Musical Translation, Science Roll, Sounds Of HIV, University of Georgia
No Comments »
A few months ago, Alexandra Pajak, a graduate student at the University of Georgia, contacted me about an album of music based on the DNA of the HIV virus she was about to release. I feel lucky that the album is just on its way to my CD player right now.
You can buy the album on Amazon (release date is October 26.) Note that some of the proceeds will go to the Emory Vaccine Center, which conducts research for an HIV vaccine. If you wonder how it was made, here’s the explanation:
Sounds of HIV is a musical translation of the genetic code of HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus. Every segment of the virus is assigned music pitches that correspond to the segment’s scientific properties. In this way, the sounds reflect the true nature of the virus. When listening from beginning to end, the listener hears the entire genome of HIV.
In English, the nucleotides Adenine, Cytosine, Uracil/Thymine, and Guanine are abbreviated with the letters A, C, T, and G. Since A, C, and G are also musical pitches in the Western melodic scale, these pitches were assigned to the matching nucleotides. To form two perfect fifths (C-G and D-A), “D” was arbitrarily assigned to musically represent Uracil. I assigned the pitches of the A minor scale to the amino acids based on their level of attraction to water.
On Sounds of HIV, depending on the track, only nucleotides and/or amino acids “play” as music. Tracks 1 and 10 are based on the first and last nucleotides of the RNA chain. Tracks 2-9 “play” the proteins and sometimes the nucleotides on top of the proteins.
*This blog post was originally published at ScienceRoll*
