Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/50138
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChutikarn Suriyaen_US
dc.contributor.authorNongyao Kasatpibalen_US
dc.contributor.authorWipada Kunaviktikulen_US
dc.contributor.authorToranee Kayeeen_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-09-04T04:25:05Z-
dc.date.available2018-09-04T04:25:05Z-
dc.date.issued2011-12-08en_US
dc.identifier.issn11787023en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-84856252861en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84856252861&origin=inwarden_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/50138-
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Limited data currently exists regarding the diagnostic indicators of peptic ulcer perforation for early detection among patients in Thailand. Delayed diagnosis and treatment for an ulcer can be life-threatening, resulting in shock or death. Objective: To determine the diagnostic indicators of peptic ulcer perforation. Material and methods: A cohort study was conducted in a tertiary care hospital in Thailand from 2005 to 2009. Peptic ulcer patients aged 15 years and over admitted to the surgical department were included. The diagnostic indicators used criteria of the patients' final diagnoses and operations, coded according to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision, which included patient profiles, gender, age, coexisting illnesses, personal habits, signs and symptoms, laboratory investigations, radiological finding, and treatment role. Exponential risk regression analyses to obtain relative risk (RR) estimates for diagnostic indicators were analyzed using Stata® statistical software package, version 11 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX). Results: The study included 1290 patients. Of these, 57% reported perforated peptic ulcer. Multivariate analysis showed five diagnostic indicators: signs and symptoms including intense abdominal pain (RR = 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.14-2.06), tenderness (RR = 1.94, 95% CI 1.17-3.21), and guarding (RR = 1.52, 95% CI 1.05-2.20); X-ray with free air (RR = 2.80, 95% CI 2.08-3.77); and referral from other hospitals (RR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.03-1.82). Conclusion: Five diagnostic indicators for peptic ulcer perforation monitoring were suggested from this study. Improving diagnostic indicators for medical care may improve the outcome of patients that have perforated peptic ulcer. © 2011 Suriya et al, publisher and licensee Dove Medical Press Ltd.en_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleDiagnostic indicators for peptic ulcer perforation at a tertiary care hospital in Thailanden_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
article.title.sourcetitleClinical and Experimental Gastroenterologyen_US
article.volume4en_US
article.stream.affiliationsChiang Mai Universityen_US
article.stream.affiliationsNakornping Hospitalen_US
Appears in Collections:CMUL: Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.