No abstract

No abstract

Full funding sources listed at the end of the paper (see Acknowledgments).

No abstract

The study was supported by Novartis.

Population Health Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, AstraZeneca (Canada), Sanofi-Aventis (France and Canada), Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany and Canada), Servier, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, King Pharma, and national or local organisations in participating countries.

The aim of this study was to evaluate how the diagnostic accuracy of a stress echocardiographic procedure, such as a dipyridamole echocardiography test, depends on the specific experience of the physician interpreting the test. Recordings of 50 consecutive dipyridamole echocardiographic tests were selected for the first part of the study. They were analyzed by 20 experienced echocardiographers with different backgrounds in stress echocardiography: 10 beginners (less than 20 stress studies interpreted with trained staff) and 10 experienced observers (greater than or equal to 100 stress studies performed). Diagnostic accuracy (true positive + true negative/total number of tests) versus the angiographic reference standard (greater than 70% coronary stenosis of at least one major coronary artery) was 62 +/- 6% for beginners and 85 +/- 3% for experienced observers (p less than 0.0001). In the second part of the study, 10 observers (5 beginners and 5 experienced observers) evaluated 2 different sets of 50 dipyridamole echocardiographic test studies before and after the training of the beginners. Before training, the accuracy of beginners was lower than that of experienced observers (61 +/- 7% versus 85 +/- 3%; p less than 0.001). After training, the accuracy gap was closed (83 +/- 3% versus 86 +/- 2%; p = NS). Therefore, interpretation of stress echocardiographic tests by an echocardiographer without specific training severely underestimates the diagnostic potential of this technique. One hundred stress echocardiographic studies are more than adequate to build the individual learning curve and reach the plateau of diagnostic accuracy that the test can yield.

BackgroundThe measurement of handgrip strength (HGS) has prognostic value with respect to all‐cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular disease, and is an important part of the evaluation of frailty. Published reference ranges for HGS are mostly derived from Caucasian populations in high‐income countries. There is a paucity of information on normative HGS values in non‐Caucasian populations from low‐ or middle‐income countries. The objective of this study was to develop reference HGS ranges for healthy adults from a broad range of ethnicities and socioeconomically diverse geographic regions.MethodsHGS was measured using a Jamar dynamometer in 125,462 healthy adults aged 35‐70 years from 21 countries in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study.ResultsHGS values differed among individuals from different geographic regions. HGS values were highest among those from Europe/North America, lowest among those from South Asia, South East Asia and Africa, and intermediate among those from China, South America, and the Middle East. Reference ranges stratified by geographic region, age, and sex are presented. These ranges varied from a median (25th–75th percentile) 50 kg (43–56 kg) in men <40 years from Europe/North America to 18 kg (14–20 kg) in women >60 years from South East Asia. Reference ranges by ethnicity and body‐mass index are also reported.ConclusionsIndividual HGS measurements should be interpreted using region/ethnic‐specific reference ranges.