Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1186/s12875-015-0373-z http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1186/s12875-015-0373-z C4619993!4619993!26498502     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 233.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       BMC+Fam+Pract 2015 ; 16 (ä): ä Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=26498502|t=2015. Studies of the symptom dyspnoea: A systematic review |pdf=|usr=}}{{26498502}} gab.com Text Studies of the symptom dyspnoea: A systematic review JO: BMC Fam Pract http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26498502 #FOAvip Background: To deal with patients suffering from dyspnoea, it is crucial for general practitioners to know the prevalences of different diseases causing dyspnoea in the respective area and season, the likelihood of avoidable life-threatening conditions and of worsening or recovery from disease. Aim: Aim of our project was to conduct a systematic review of symptom-evaluating studies on the prevalence, aetiology, and prognosis of dyspnoea as presented to GPs in a primary care setting. Methods: We did a systematic review of symptom-evaluating studies on dyspnoea in primary care. For this we included all studies investigating the complaint ?dyspnoea? as a primary or secondary consulting reason in general practice. Apart from qualitative studies, all kind of study designs independent from type of data assessment, outcome measurement or study quality were included. Symptom-evaluating studies from other settings than primary care and studies which exclusively included children (age <18 years) were excluded from the review. Studies selecting patients prior to recruitment, e.g. because of an increased probability for a particular diagnosis, were also excluded. Results: This systematic review identified 6 symptom evaluating studies on dyspnoea in the primary care setting. The prevalence of dyspnoea as reason for consultation ranges from 0.87 to 2.59 % in general practice. Among all dyspnoea patients 2.7 % (CI 2.2?3.3) suffer from pneumonia. Further specification of underlying aetiologies seems difficult due to the studies? heterogeneity showing a great variety of probabilities. Conclusion: There is a great lack of empirical evidence on the prevalence, aetiology and prognosis of dyspnoea in general practice. This might yield uncertainty in diagnosis and evaluation of dyspnoea in primary care. Twit Text FOAVip Studies of the symptom dyspnoea: A systematic review ????BMC Fam Pract http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26498502 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=26498502 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|26498502}}</ref> Studies of the symptom dyspnoea: A systematic review #MMPMID26498502 Viniol A; Beidatsch D; Frese T; Bergmann M; Grevenrath P; Schmidt L; Schwarm S; Haasenritter J; Bösner S; Becker A BMC Fam Pract 2015[]; 16 (ä): ä PMID26498502show ga Background: To deal with patients suffering from dyspnoea, it is crucial for general practitioners to know the prevalences of different diseases causing dyspnoea in the respective area and season, the likelihood of avoidable life-threatening conditions and of worsening or recovery from disease. Aim: Aim of our project was to conduct a systematic review of symptom-evaluating studies on the prevalence, aetiology, and prognosis of dyspnoea as presented to GPs in a primary care setting. Methods: We did a systematic review of symptom-evaluating studies on dyspnoea in primary care. For this we included all studies investigating the complaint ?dyspnoea? as a primary or secondary consulting reason in general practice. Apart from qualitative studies, all kind of study designs independent from type of data assessment, outcome measurement or study quality were included. Symptom-evaluating studies from other settings than primary care and studies which exclusively included children (age <18 years) were excluded from the review. Studies selecting patients prior to recruitment, e.g. because of an increased probability for a particular diagnosis, were also excluded. Results: This systematic review identified 6 symptom evaluating studies on dyspnoea in the primary care setting. The prevalence of dyspnoea as reason for consultation ranges from 0.87 to 2.59 % in general practice. Among all dyspnoea patients 2.7 % (CI 2.2?3.3) suffer from pneumonia. Further specification of underlying aetiologies seems difficult due to the studies? heterogeneity showing a great variety of probabilities. Conclusion: There is a great lack of empirical evidence on the prevalence, aetiology and prognosis of dyspnoea in general practice. This might yield uncertainty in diagnosis and evaluation of dyspnoea in primary care. äStudies of the symptom dyspnoea: A systematic review (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing