OBJECTIVE:Physicians do not adequately use their unique professional privilege to prevent patients from smoking. The aim of this study was to investigate the type and extent of advice given to patients by physicians of different medical specialties regarding smoking cessation.METHODS:In total, 317 volunteer physicians were included in this study. The participants rated their attitudes toward the smoking habits of their patients by completing a questionnaire. The approaches used to address the smoking habits of patients significantly differed among physicians working at polyclinics, clinics and emergency service departments (p<0.001). Physicians working at clinics exhibited the highest frequency of inquiring about the smoking habits of their patients, while physicians working at emergency service departments exhibited the lowest frequency.RESULTS:Physicians from different medical specialties significantly differed in their responses. Physicians specializing in lung diseases, thoracic surgery, and cardiology were more committed to preventing their patients from cigarette smoking.CONCLUSIONS:The role of physicians, particularly pulmonologists and thoracic surgeons, is critical in the fight against cigarette smoking. Promoting physician awareness of this subject is highly important in all other branches of medicine.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: Risk analysis models, which are used in the diagnostic algorithm of incidental pulmonary nodules, are based on patient data from developed countries. Mayo Clinic, Brock University and Herder are among the most known models. We aim to compare the reliability of these models in patients with indeterminate solid nodules and to investigate the contribution of the predictors used to the model. Methods:We analysed 305 patients who performed transthoracic needle biopsy and positron emission tomography/computed tomography for solid nodules, retrospectively. For all three models, the malignancy risk probabilities of patients were calculated, and patients were classified as low (<5%), moderate (60%) and high (<60%) risk groups. Later, the malignancy rates of each model in three different risk groups were compared within each other and among the models. Results:The malignancy rate is 73% in 305 patients. In the Mayo Clinic and Herder models, the difference in the low-, medium-and high-risk groups is significant (p < 0.001). In the medium-risk group, the rate of malignancy is 96.8% in the Brock model. In the high-risk group, the rate of malignancy in Herder is 88.3% and the rate of malignancy in Mayo Clinic is 28.8%. The optimal cutoff values for the Mayo Clinic, Brock University, and Herder were 29.6, 13.4 and 70 (AUC, respectively; 0.71, 0.67 and 0.73). Age, smoking, gender, size, emphysema and spiculation increase the likelihood of malignancy. Conclusion:Close results were obtained in all three models. In the high-risk group, the Herder model has the highest reliability rate (odds ratio 3.3, confidence interval [1.1, 10.2]). Upper lobe predilection is not a reliable predictor.

No abstract