Analysis of clinician accuracy in the diagnosis of benign anorectal pathology across specialties: the value of clinical symptoms: LTP81

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


Aim:The aim was to analyze the value of clinical symptoms in the diagnostic accuracy by specialists of benign anorectal pathology and its relationship with years ofprofessional experience.Method:Seven typical cases were selected. In an interview, participants were shown images and asked toprovide a diagnosis. Afterwards, the images with additional information (clinical symptoms) have been used. The specialists (Gr.1 = General Surgery and Gr.2 = Medical specialities) fulfilled the two phases of the study in order to analyze the value of clinical symptoms in the final diagnosis.Results:Forty-four specialists were interviewed (Gr.1 n = 13 and Gr.2 n = 31). The resolution for case1 (Perianal abscess) was: Gr.1:100% vs Gr.2:80.6%, (P = 0.157), case2 (Fissure): Gr.1:92.3% vs Gr.2:51.6% (P = 0.015), case3 (Thrombosed hemorrhoid): Gr.1:92.3% vs Gr.2:74.2% (P = 0.321), case4 (Anal condyloma): Gr.1:100% vs Gr.2:87.1% (P = 0.302), case5 (Rectalprolapse): Gr.1:100% vs Gr.2:83.9% (P = 0.301), case6 (Prolapsed haemorrhoid): Gr.1:92.3% vs Gr.2:29% (P = 0.001), case7 (Fistula): Gr.1: 100% vs Gr.2:67.7% (P = 0.021). There were significant differences regarding the number of resolved cases among groups (P < 0.001). Information about clinical symptoms increased significantly the overall and specific accuracy. There was no correlation between experience and accuracy.Conclusion:Clinical symptoms are relevant for diagnostic accuracy in anorectal pathology. Training in anorectal pathology among medical specialities is warranted.

    loading  Loading Related Articles