Background Effective tuberculosis (TB) control in HIV-prevalent settings is hindered by absence of accurate, rapid TB diagnostic tests. We evaluated the accuracy of a urine lipoarabinomannan (LAM) test for TB diagnosis in South Africa. Methods Hospitalized adults with signs and/or symptoms of active TB were enrolled. Sputum smear microscopy and mycobacterial culture, mycobacterial blood culture, and HIV testing were performed. A spot urine specimen was tested for LAM. Results 499 participants were enrolled; 422 (84.6%) were HIV-infected. In microbiologically-confirmed TB patients, the LAM test was positive in 114/193 (sensitivity 59%, [95% CI 52, 66]), including 112/167 (67% [59, 74]) who were HIV-infected. Among individuals classified as “not TB”, the LAM test was negative in 117/122 (specificity 96% [91, 99]), including 83/88 (94% [87, 98]) who were HIV-infected. In confirmed TB patients, the LAM test was more sensitive than sputum smear microscopy (42%, 82/193, p<0.001) and detected 56% (62/111) of those who were sputum smear-negative. HIV-infection (AOR 13.4), mycobacteremia (AOR 3.21), and positive sputum smear (AOR 2.42) were risk factors for a positive LAM test. Conclusions The urine LAM test detected a subset of HIV-infected patients with severe TB in whom sputum smear microscopy had suboptimal sensitivity. The combination of urine LAM testing and sputum smear microscopy is attractive for use in settings with high HIV burden.

Level IV, case series.

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are key tools when performing clinical research and PROM data are increasingly used to inform clinical decision-making, patient-centered care, health policy and more recently, reimbursement decisions. PROMs must possess particular properties before they are used. Thus purpose of this paper is to give an overview of PROMs, their definition, how their evidence can be assessed, how they should be reported in clinical research, how to choose PROMs, the types of PROMs available in orthopaedics, where these measures can be found, PROMs in orthopaedic clinical practice and what are some key next steps in this field. If PROMs are used in accordance with the guidance in this article, I believe we will gain considerable insight into PROMs in orthopaedics and will advance this field in a way that can contribute to science, improve patient care and save considerable resources. Why Patient Reported Outcome Measures? The development, testing and implementation of tools to aid in the measurement of phenomena in medicine are central to clinical practice and clinical research. Measurements in clinical practice form the basis of diagnosis, prognosis, evaluation and follow-up. Measurements in clinical research allow for the collection of data that afford us the information needed to test specific hypotheses [1]. The field of measurement in medicine includes both psychometrics and clinimetrics [2-4]. But, it has been argued thatthere is little distinction between these two areas [3]. Throughout this paper the term psychometrics will be used and more generally the term measurement to refer to these fields.

Our goal was to determine whether there were age-related differences in pain, opiate use, and opiate side effects after total hip or knee arthroplasty in patients 60 years old or older. We hypothesized that there would be no significant differences between age groups in (1) mean pain score, (2) opiate use after adjusting for pain, or (3) opiate side effects after adjusting for opiate use and pain score. We retrospectively reviewed the electronic and paper charts of all patients undergoing total joint replacements at our institution over 3 years who met the following criteria: (1) 60 years old or older, (2) primary single total knee or total hip replacement, and (3) no preoperative dementia. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative course data were collected using a customized data entry process and database. We divided the patients into 2 age groups, those 60 to 79 years old and those 80 years old or older. Using a marginal model with the panel variable of postoperative day, we investigated the associations between age group and pain, age group and pain adjusting for opiate use, and age group and complications (respiratory depression, naloxone usage as a measure of respiratory arrest, delirium, constipation, and urinary retention) adjusting for opiate use (Xtgee, Stata10, Stata Corp. LP, College Station, Texas). Significance was set at P < .05. We found no significant difference in pain scores between groups, but the older group had significantly fewer opiates prescribed yet significantly more side effects, including delirium (odds ratio 4.2), than did the younger group, even after adjusting for opiate dose and pain score.