Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Pathologists”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,171 records · Page 65Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Emerging issues and trends in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: an update for the speech-language pathologist.

There are many trends in the diagnosis and treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) that have emerged over the past several years. The first of these emerging trends is the growing prevalence of ADHD diagnoses across age groups and cultures. Although the causes of this growing prevalence are unclear, several suggestions, including a broader definition of ADHD, are discussed as potential contributions. A second emerging issue is related to the underlying theory of ADHD. Barkley's biopsychosocial model of ADHD is briefly discussed as a prototype model to help in the understanding of ADHD. Finally, the growing trend in pharmacological treatment of ADHD is discussed. Stimulant medications, as well as a recent nonstimulant medication are discussed and compared with nonpharmacological alternatives.

Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity↗
PubMed2005

Multilaboratory testing of thrombophilia: current and past practice in Australasia as assessed through the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Program for Hematology.

We have conducted a series of multilaboratory surveys during the last 6 years to evaluate testing proficiency in the detection of congenital and acquired thrombophilia. For lupus anticoagulant (LA) testing, participant laboratories used a panel of tests, including activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT; 100% of laboratories), kaolin clotting time (26 to 70%), and Russell's viper venom time (RVVT; 75 to 100%). Coefficients of variation (CVs) for assays ranged from 5 to 40%. RVVT assays appeared to be most sensitive and specific for detection of LA (fewer false-negatives or -positives), although laboratories performed best when they used a panel of tests. For congenital thrombophilia, tests evaluated comprised protein C (PC), protein S (PS), antithrombin (AT), and activated protein C resistance (APCR). Most participant laboratories performed PC using chromogenic (approximately 75%), or clot based (approximately 15%) assays, with few (< 10%) performing antigenic assessments. PS was most often assessed (approximately 60%) by immunological or antigenic assays, usually of free PS, or by functional or clot-based assays (approximately 40%). AT is usually assessed by functional chromogenic assays (approximately 95%). APCR was assessed using aPTT (approximately 50%) or RVVT (approximately 50%) clot-based assays, with the aPTT APCR typically performed using factor V-deficient plasma predilution, but the RVVT APCR typically performed without. Laboratories using the RVVT APCR generally performed better in detection of factor V Leiden-associated APCR, with the aPTT method group yielding higher false-negative and/or false-positive findings (approximately 5% of occasions). Some clot-based PC and PS assays appeared to be influenced by APCR status, and yielded lower apparent PC and PS levels with positive APC resistance. The overall error rate for PC, PS, and AT was approximately 2 to 8% (i.e., false-normal interpretations for deficient plasma or false-abnormal interpretations for normal plasma). The CVs for these assays ranged from 5 to 40%, with highest CVs typically obtained with PS assays.

Activated Protein C Resistance↗
PubMed2006

Reducing errors in identification of von Willebrand disease: the experience of the royal college of pathologists of australasia quality assurance program.

Regular multilaboratory surveys of laboratories derived primarily from Australia, New Zealand, and Southeast Asia have been conducted during the last 8 years to evaluate testing proficiency in the diagnosis of von Willebrand disease (vWD). We summarize and update the findings of these surveys with a particular emphasis on diagnostic errors and error rates associated with particular tests or test panel limitations. A total of 43 plasma samples have been dispatched to survey participants. These have included 13 normal samples, five type 1 vWD samples, eight type 2 vWD samples (three 2A, three 2B, one 2M, and one 2N), and four type 3 vWD samples. In addition to numerical test results, participant laboratories (currently, n = 49) were asked to provide diagnostic interpretations regarding results, and whether or not vWD was suggested, and if so, a probable subtype. Although laboratories usually provided correct interpretative responses, diagnostic errors occurred in a substantial number of cases. On average, type 1 vWD plasma was misidentified as type 2 vWD in 13.3% of cases, and laboratories performing von Willebrand factor (vWF):ristocetin cofactor activity (RCo) without vWF:collagen-binding activity (CB) were seven times more likely to make such an error compared with those performing vWF:CB. Similarly, type 2 vWD plasma was misidentified as type 1 or type 3 vWD in an average of 20.1% of cases, and laboratories performing vWF:RCo without vWF:CB were three times more likely to make such an error compared with those performing vWF:CB. Finally, normal plasma was misidentified as vWD in an average of 6.7% of cases, and laboratories performing vWF:RCo without vWF:CB were four times more likely to make such an error compared with those performing vWF:CB. We conclude that although laboratories are generally proficient in tests for vWD, diagnostic errors do occur and error rates are substantially reduced when test panels are more comprehensive and include the vWF:CB.

Australasia↗