Is a standardized questionnaire useful for tubal rupture screening in patients with ectopic pregnancy?

Academic Emergency Medicine

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 24-30

  Huchon, Cyrille ^a,b,c   Panel, Pierre ^d   Kayem, Gilles ^c,e   Bassot, Agnès ^c   Nguyen, Thuy ^f   Falissard, Bruno ^g,h   Fauconnier, Arnaud ^a,b,c  

^a CENTRE HOSPITALIER INTERCOMMUNAL   (France)

^b LABORATOIRE DES SCIENCES DU CLIMAT ET DE L ENVIRONNEMENT   (France)

^c Institut Cochin   (France)

^d CHI Versailles A Mignot   (France)

^e CENTRE HOSPITALIER INTERCOMMUNAL DE CRÉTEIL   (France)

^f HÔPITAL LOUIS MOURIER   (France)

^g INSERM   (France)

^h UNIVERSITÉ PARIS SACLAY   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL PAIN; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL FEATURE; CLINICAL TRIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ECTOPIC PREGNANCY; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGIC DISEASE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL HISTORY; PAIN; PELVIS PAIN SYNDROME; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCREENING TEST; SELF REPORT; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUBAL RUPTURE; UTERINE TUBE PREGNANCY; VOMITING;

ADULT; AREA UNDER CURVE; FEMALE; HUMANS; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PELVIC PAIN; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY, TUBAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; RUPTURE, SPONTANEOUS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84855993663     PISSN: 10696563     EISSN: 15532712     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01238.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Hoover KW, Tao G, Kent CK,. Trends in the diagnosis and treatment of ectopic pregnancy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115: 495-502.
2. Van Den Eeden SK, Shan J, Bruce C, Glasser M,. Ectopic pregnancy rate and treatment utilization in a large managed care organization. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105 (5 Pt 1): 1052-7. (Pubitemid 40571025)
3. Khan KS, Wojdyla D, Say L, Gulmezoglu AM, Van Look PF,. WHO analysis of causes of maternal death: a systematic review. Lancet. 2006; 367: 1066-74.
4. Job-Spira N, Fernandez H, Bouyer J, Pouly JL, Germain E, Coste J,. Ruptured tubal ectopic pregnancy: risk factors and reproductive outcome: results of a population-based study in France. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 180: 938-44. (Pubitemid 29200560)
5. Saxon D, Falcone T, Mascha EJ, Marino T, Yao M, Tulandi T,. A study of ruptured tubal ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 90: 46-9. (Pubitemid 27272954)
6. Ankum WM, Van der Veen F, Hamerlynck JV, Lammes FB,. Transvaginal sonography and human chorionic gonadotrophin measurements in suspected ectopic pregnancy: a detailed analysis of a diagnostic approach. Hum Reprod. 1993; 8: 1307-11. (Pubitemid 23249542)
7. Condous G, Okaro E, Khalid A, et al., The accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy prior to surgery. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20: 1404-9. (Pubitemid 40790271)
8. Mol BW, Hajenius PJ, Engelsbel S, et al., Can noninvasive diagnostic tools predict tubal rupture or active bleeding in patients with tubal pregnancy? Fertil Steril. 1999; 71: 167-73. (Pubitemid 29042364)
9. Hirata AJ, Soper DE, Bump RC, Hurt WG,. Ectopic pregnancy in an urban teaching hospital: can tubal rupture be predicted? South Med J. 1991; 84: 1467-9.
10. Stovall TG, Kellerman AL, Ling FW, Buster JE,. Emergency department diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. Ann Emerg Med. 1990; 19: 1098-103. (Pubitemid 20365197)
11. Fernandez H, Lelaidier C, Thouvenez V, Frydman R,. The use of a pretherapeutic, predictive score to determine inclusion criteria for the non-surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 1991; 6: 995-8.
12. American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 94: medical management of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111: 1479-85.
13. Eskelinen M, Ikonen J, Lipponen P,. Usefulness of history-taking, physical examination and diagnostic scoring in acute renal colic. Eur Urol. 1998; 34: 467-73. (Pubitemid 28550309)
14. Colaizzi PF,. Psychological Research as the Phenomenologist Views It. In:, Valle RS, King G, (eds). Existential-Phenomenological Alternatives for Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1978, p 48-71.
15. Mol BW, van Der Veen F, Bossuyt PM,. Implementation of probabilistic decision rules improves the predictive values of algorithms in the diagnostic management of ectopic pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 1999; 14: 2855-62. (Pubitemid 29520707)
16. Gervaise A,. [Management of non-surgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy] (French). J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2003; 32 (7 Suppl): S64-74.
17. Loong TW,. Understanding sensitivity and specificity with the right side of the brain. BMJ. 2003; 327: 716-9.
18. Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL,. Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994; 271: 703-7. (Pubitemid 24061707)
19. Schwartz D, Lellouch J,. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 499-505.
20. White H,. A heteroskedastic-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test of heteroskedasticity. Econometrica. 1980; 48: 817-38.
21. Efron B, Gong G,. A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife and cross validation. Am Statistician. 1983; 37: 36-48.
22. Basra R, Artibani W, Cardozo L, et al., Design and validation of a new screening instrument for lower urinary tract dysfunction: the bladder control self-assessment questionnaire (B-SAQ). Eur Urol. 2007; 52: 230-7.
23. Fauconnier A, Chapron C,. Endometriosis and pelvic pain: epidemiological evidence of the relationship and implications. Hum Reprod Update. 2005; 11: 595-606. (Pubitemid 41631309)
24. Birkhahn RH, Gaeta TJ, Bei R, Bove JJ,. Shock index in the first trimester of pregnancy and its relationship to ruptured ectopic pregnancy. Acad Emerg Med. 2002; 9: 115-9. (Pubitemid 34121592)
25. Lamvu G, Steege JF,. The anatomy and neurophysiology of pelvic pain. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006; 13: 516-22. (Pubitemid 44693486)
26. Melzack R,. The McGill pain questionnaire: from description to measurement. Anesthesiology. 2005; 103: 199-202.
27. Snyder H,. Lack of a tachycardic response to hypotension with ruptured ectopic pregnancy. Am J Emerg Med. 1990; 8: 23-6. (Pubitemid 20094581)
28. Boureau F, Luu M, Doubrere JF,. Comparative study of the validity of four French McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) versions. Pain. 1992; 50: 59-65.
29. Arendt-Nielsen L, Drewes AM, Hansen JB, Tage-Jensen U,. Gut pain reactions in man: an experimental investigation using short and long duration transmucosal electrical stimulation. Pain. 1997; 69: 255-62. (Pubitemid 27096406)
30. Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR,. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med. 1978; 299: 926-30. (Pubitemid 9050459)
31. Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB,. Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med. 1996; 15: 361-87. (Pubitemid 26072233)
32. Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR,. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996; 49: 1373-9. (Pubitemid 27028925)
33. Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE,. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol. 2007; 165: 710-8. (Pubitemid 46348374)