Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

L J Fetters

Publications and source records attributed to L J Fetters.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Cost-effective syphilis screening in military recruit applicants.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of syphilis screening was performed. Strategies included no screening, universal testing at military entrance processing stations, universal testing at basic training centers, and contracting centralized screening. Probabilities derived from data retained on recruit applicants from 1989 through 1991 (N = 1,588,143) and from the published literature were used. Cost estimates were derived from costs incurred by the military and costs projected from implementing new strategies. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Modifying the existing contract for human immunodeficiency virus screening to include syphilis screening would maximize the effectiveness of screening at a cost to the Department of Defense of $9.52 per additional year of service received. The no-screening option was significantly more cost-saving than the current method of testing. Syphilis is rare and treatable, and individuals with syphilis will be identified by other means in many cases. Syphilis screening of recruit applicants at the military entrance processing stations should cease, saving the military $2,541,000 per year.

Algorithms↗

Methacholine challenge test.

Methacholine challenge has been proposed as a diagnostic test in situations where clinical asthma is suspected but reversible airway obstruction cannot be demonstrated spirometrically. Methacholine challenge was used in 14 patients with suspected asthma and five normal controls. Eight individuals (six patients and two controls) had a reduction in the forced expiratory volume at 1 s (FEV1) of 20% or more with 100 inhalation units (IUs) of methacholine; seven additional individuals (six patients and one control) met one or more of the American Thoracic Society's criteria for a positive bronchoprovocation test; and four individuals (two patients and two controls) were not sensitive to methacholine by any criteria. The diagnosis of asthma can be excluded if methacholine does not induce reversible obstruction. However, provocation of reversible obstruction with methacholine is not specific for asthma. More stringent criteria, such as reduction of FEV1 by 20% by 20 IUs of methacholine, would be less sensitive but more specific for asthma.

Asthma↗