000			05123nam a22004337a 4500
001			CUHAS/MMED/6000141/T/14
003			CUHAS/MMED/6000141/T/14
005			20240418092039.0
008			210820b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
028			_bWurzburg Road 35, BMC Premises, Post Code: 33102:
028			_b P. O Box 1464, Mwanza – Tanzania:
028			_bPhone: +255 28 298 3384:
028			_bFax: +255 28 298 3386:
028			_bEmail: vc@bugando.ac.tz :
028			_b www.bugando.ac.tz
035			_aCUHAS/MMED/6000141/T/14
040			_cddc
041			_aEnglish
100			_aMohamed Said Binde _922659 _d[Male] _eCUHAS/MMED/6000141/T/14
210			_aABBREVIATIONS _bATLS Advanced Trauma Life Support BAT Blunt abdominal trauma BMC Bugando Medical Centre CT Computed Tomography CUHAS Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences FAST Focused Assessment for the Sonographic examination of the Trauma patient FIPF Free intraperitoneal fluid GIT Gastrointestinal Tract MRI Magnetic Resonance Imaging NPV Negative Predictive Value PID Pelvic Inflammatory Diseases PPV Positive Predictive Value TOM Tubo-Ovarian Mass US Ultrasound/Ultrasonography WHO World Health Organization
222			_aOPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS _bAccuracy Refers to all cases with correct diagnosis i.e. Accuracy = TP + TN x 100% TP+TN+FP+FN
222			_aOPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS _bFalse negative A number of cases to which operative findings are positive to particular disease, but ultrasound findings are negative to the disease
222			_aOPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS _bFalse positive A number of cases to which ultrasound findings point to a particular disease, but operative findings are negative to a disease
222			_aOPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS _bNegative Predictive Measures the probability that the disease is actually absent if the test is negative i.e. Negative Predictive Value = TN x 100% TN+ FN
222			_aOPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS _bPositive Predictive Refers to the percentages of patients with positive test results who actually have the disease i.e. probability that the disease is actually present if the test is positive. i.e. Positive Predictive Value = TP x 100% TP+ FP
222			_aOPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS _bSensitivity Percentage of all patients with the disease who have a positive test i.e. Sensitivity = TP X100 %xiii TP+FN
222			_aOPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS _bSpecificity Percentage of all patients without the disease who have a negative test. i.e. Specificity = TN X100 % TN+FP
222			_aOPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS _bTrue negative A number of cases to which both ultrasound findings and operative findings are negative to a particular disease
222			_aOPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS _bTrue positive A number of cases which ultrasound findings and operative findings are all corresponding to one another i.e. they point to one particular disease
245			_aUtility of Abdominal Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Abdomino-Pelvic Lesions at Bugando Medical Centre, Mwanza Tanzania
260			_aMwanza, Tanzania _bCatholic University of Health and Allied Sciences [CUHAS - Bugando] _c2018
300			_a xiv; 65 Pages
300			_aIncludes References and Appendices
520			_aABSTRACT: Background: Abdominal ultrasound is widely used as a primary diagnostic imaging for patients with palpable or suspected with abdomino-pelvic lesions. This may be explained by its relative accessibility, affordability and safety as compared to other sophisticated imaging such as computerized tomography scan, Magnetic resonance imaging, nuclear medicine and others. However, its diagnostic utility {i.e. sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, error and predictive values) has not yet been assessed in our centre, and therefore its use as an alternative diagnostic tool in patients with abdomino-pelvic lesions is not justified. This existing knowledge gap prompted the author to conduct this study Objective: To determine the utility of abdominal ultrasound in the diagnosis of abdomino-pelvic lesions at Bugando Medical Centre Methods: This was a cross sectional study to evaluate the diagnostic utility of abdominal ultrasound in patients with palpable or suspected with abdomino-pelvic lesions at Bugando Medical Centre between January 2017 to May 2017 Results: A total of 146 patients (M: F= 1; 2.2) were studied. The mean age was 39 .30 years. The diagnostic value of abdominal ultrasound (in terms of sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy) in the diagnosis of abdomino-pelvic lesions varies with anatomical site and organ of origin and in this study it was low compared with what is reported in developed world. Conclusion: The diagnostic value of abdominal ultrasound in detecting abdomino-pelvic lesions is much lower than that seen in developing countries, hence, abdominal ultrasound is not a reliable tool in detecting abdomino-pelvic lesions at BMC and should be supplemented with abdominal CT scan in selected cases.
600			_xSurgery _929082
700			_aWilliam Mahalu _915823
700			_aGoffrey Kassanga _948327
942			_2ddc _cMP
999			_c18386 _d18386