Background: Analysis of salivary variables has frequently been proposed as a diagnostic tool for Sjö-gren's syndrome (SS). Because univocal salivary reference values are lacking, it is currently rather difficult to use sialometry and sialochemistry for diagnosing SS unless major changes have occurred in salivary secretion and composition. Objective: To define reference values of several salivary variables, which offer a possible new and non-invasive means of diagnosing SS. Methods: Cut off points were selected from receiver operating characteristic curves of gland-specific sialometrical and sialochemical variables, which have proved to be potentially relevant for diagnosing SS in a previous study-that is, sodium, chloride, and phosphate concentration in stimulated parotid and submandibular/sublingual (SM/SL) saliva, unstimulated and stimulated SM/SL flow rates, and lag phase of parotid secretion, respectively. By combining the most discriminating variables, two different diagnostic approaches for SS were applied in a group of 100 patients and subsequently evaluated in a second group of 20 patients. The first approach was to combine variables by applying their cut off points into sets of criteria for a positive diagnosis of SS. The second approach was to construct a logistic regression model that predicts the true state of a patient (SS or non-SS). From both approaches, the tests with highest likelihood ratio combined with the smallest number of rejected cases were selected for clinical use. Results: The most accurate test combined the stimulated SM/SL flow rate and parotid sodium and chloride concentration as salivary variables for diagnosing SS; it had a sensitivity of 0.85 and a specificity of 0.96. The selected tests proved equally accurate in the second group of patients. Conclusions: Because the proposed non-invasive diagnostic tools can be easily applied, do not need a laboratory other than for routine blood testing, and are very accurate, gland-specific sialometry and sialochemistry may eventually replace other, more invasive, diagnostic techniques for diagnosing SS.
PurposeTo examine the natural course and outcome of major depressive disorder (MDD) in primary care over 39 months.MethodsProspective cohort study of 1,338 consecutive attendees with follow-up after 6, 12, and 39 months with DSM-IV MDD using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). We measured severity of depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire 9), somatic symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire 15), and mental and physical function (Short Form 12, mental and physical component summary). Analysis of variance and random coefficient models were performed.ResultsAt baseline, 174 people (13%) had MDD of which 17% had a chronic and 40% had a fluctuating course, while 43% remitted. Patients with chronic courses had more severe depressive symptoms (mean difference 6.54; 95% CI 4.38–8.70), somatic symptoms (mean difference 3.31; 95% CI 1.61–5.02), and greater mental dysfunction (mean difference −10.49; 95% CI −14.42 to −6.57) at baseline than those who remitted from baseline, independent of age, sex, level of education, presence of a chronic disease, and a lifetime history of depression.ConclusionsAlthough 43% of patients with MDD attending primary care recover, this leaves a majority of patients (57%) who have a chronic or intermittent course. Chronic courses are associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms and somatic symptoms and greater mental dysfunction at baseline.
A minority of patients with MDD is recognized in primary care. Those who were unrecognized had comparable outcome after 12 and 39 months as participants with recognized depression.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.