Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Head and neck Cancer (1)
- Lymphadenopathy (1)
- Salivary gland diseases (1)
- Structured reporting (1)
- Ultrasonography (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Objective: Betahistine is a histamine H1-receptor agonist and H3-receptor antagonist that is administered to treat Menière’s disease. Despite widespread use, its pharmacological mode of action has not been entirely elucidated. This study investigated the effect of betahistine on guinea pigs at dosages corresponding to clinically used doses for cochlear microcirculation.
Methods: Thirty healthy Dunkin-Hartley guinea pigs were randomly assigned to five groups to receive betahistine dihydrochloride in a dose of 1,000 mg/kg b. w. (milligram per kilogram body weight), 0.100 mg/kg b. w., 0.010 mg/kg b. w., 0.001 mg/kg b. w. in NaCl 0.9% or NaCl 0.9% alone as placebo. Cochlear blood flow and mean arterial pressure were continuously monitored by intravital fluorescence microscopy and invasive blood pressure measurements 3 minutes before and 15 minutes after administration of betahistine.
Results: When betahistine was administered in a dose of 1.000 mg/kg b. w. cochlear blood flow was increased to a peak value of 1.340 arbitrary units (SD: 0.246; range: 0.933–1.546 arb. units) compared to baseline (p<0.05; Two Way Repeated Measures ANOVA/Bonferroni t-test). The lowest dosage of 0.001 mg/kg b. w. betahistine or NaCl 0.9% had the same effect as placebo. Nonlinear regression revealed that there was a sigmoid correlation between increase in blood flow and dosages.
Conclusions: Betahistine has a dose-dependent effect on the increase of blood flow in cochlear capillaries. The effects of the dosage range of betahistine on cochlear microcirculation corresponded well to clinically used single dosages to treat Menière’s disease. Our data suggest that the improved effects of higher doses of betahistine in the treatment of Menière’s disease might be due to a corresponding increase of cochlear blood flow.
Background: Reports of head and neck ultrasound examinations are frequently written by hand as free texts. Naturally, quality and structure of free text reports is variable, depending on the examiner’s individual level of experience. Aim of the present study was to compare the quality of free text reports (FTR) and structured reports (SR) of head and neck ultrasound examinations.
Methods: Both standard FTRs and SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations of 43 patients were acquired by nine independent examiners with comparable levels of experience. A template for structured reporting of head and neck ultrasound examinations was created using a web-based approach. FTRs and SRs were evaluated with regard to overall quality, completeness, required time to completion, and readability by four independent raters with different specializations (Paired Wilcoxon test, 95% CI) and inter-rater reliability was assessed (Fleiss’ kappa). A questionnaire was used to compare FTRs vs. SRs with respect to user satisfaction (Mann-Whitney U test, 95% CI).
Results: By comparison, completeness scores of SRs were significantly higher than FTRs’ completeness scores (94.4% vs. 45.6%, p < 0.001), and pathologies were described in more detail (91.1% vs. 54.5%, p < 0.001). Readability was significantly higher in all SRs when compared to FTRs (100% vs. 47.1%, p < 0.001). The mean time to complete a report, however, was significantly higher in SRs (176.5 vs. 107.3 s, p < 0.001). SRs achieved significantly higher user satisfaction ratings (VAS 8.87 vs. 1.41, p < 0.001) and a very high inter-rater reliability (Fleiss’ kappa 0.92).
Conclusions: As compared to FTRs, SRs of head and neck ultrasound examinations are more comprehensive and easier to understand. On the balance, the additional time needed for completing a SR is negligible. Also, SRs yield high inter-rater reliability and may be used for high-quality scientific data analyses.