Jump to content

I am the Object of My Pimp's Affection


Recommended Posts

we're doing rheum and musculoskeletal in clin med so I figured id ask one tonight...

 

what 4 out of seven things have to be present to diagnose RA? and what joints are not affected in solitary RA?

 

-hand involvement (the PIP joints are spared in RA alone but are involved with secondary OA.)

-you must have symmetrical polyarticular arthritis

-of at least 3 joints

-RF factor or anti-CCP positive.

-morning stiffness lasting great than 1 hour that improves throughout the day

-radiographic findings (degeneration)

-rheumatoid nodules.

 

just thought id answer it real quick since i posted it.

 

how about this.. in the same line of questioning.

 

describe boutteniere's deformity and swan-neck deformity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Guest pac4hire
Time to revive this thread :)

 

I got an interesting question from a surgical PA when we were looking at a CT of a pt with a massive inguinal hernia. He said it was Throckmorton negative - then asked what "Throckmorton negative" meant and the significance of the finding.

 

 

Thats actually the oldest joke in radiology LA. Although everyone knows what throckmortons sign is, you should never use the eponym in dictations or written notes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats actually the oldest joke in radiology LA. Although everyone knows what throckmortons sign is, you should never use the eponym in dictations or written notes.

 

It might be old but it was new to me. He asked in the middle of some more serious pimping, so I thought it was real. I'll take your advice and not use it in any documentation. :p

 

Just passing on info to any of my cohorts who may be as naive to that one as I was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pac4hire

im not getting onto you i just dont want you making the same mistakes i made!!!!

 

I also got called to medical records and fussed out for writting:

 

the area was prepped and draped in the usual standard sterie manner, 5 cc 1% lidocain was infiltrated into the area. A 3 cm insicion was made down to the subcutaneaous tissue and approx 5 cc of PUSSEY material was removed.

 

 

Moral of the story is always use purulent!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for reviving the thread, LA! Haven't seen any pimping around here in quite a while. I'm on pediatrics right now so here's some Peds pimping for you all.

Fifth's disease is a common pediatric disease causing a pink maculopapular rash. Some sources say it is so named because it was the 5th disease discovered to cause such a rash.

The question is:

What are the 4 diseases that cause a pink maculopapular rash that came before Fifth's??

pahopeful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm new to this, but I'll give it a shot...

1. rubella

2. roseola

3. scarlet fever

 

4. rubeola

5. Lyme's (big guess...)

 

Good guesses...glad you joined in thinePA!

 

Ok, the answer that I was given for the one rash no has named yet is MEASLES!

 

So the 4 rashes before Fifth's disease include:

1. measles

2. rubella

3. roseola

4. scarlet fever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comment in:

The "fourth disease" of childhood: reevaluation of a nonexistent disease.

 

Morens DM, Katz AR.

 

Section of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

 

Observed and described between 1884 and 1900, "fourth disease" (Dukes disease) followed measles, scarlet fever, and rubella as the fourth clinically characterized childhood exanthem. Like rubella ("third disease") and erythema infectiosum ("fifth disease"), accepted by the medical community at about the same time, the existence of fourth disease was initially controversial. Over the following decades descriptions of hundreds of cases, outbreaks, and laboratory studies were published in the indexed medical literature. Unlike rubella and fifth disease, however, fourth disease was not subsequently proven to exist by either epidemiologic criteria or isolation of an etiologic agent. By the 1930s, it was infrequently recognized and by the 1960s had been dropped from textbooks. In this study, the authors use epidemiologic methods to reevaluate published data on English schoolchildren from 1892 to 1900 upon which the original fourth disease claim of Dukes was based. The authors conclude that fourth disease never existed. Reinterpretation of the original data suggests that cases can be completely explained as misdiagnosed rubella and scarlet fever. Misidentification of fourth disease is attributed to failures in the critical abilities of the medical and scientific communities at the time. The implications of erroneously identifying a nonexistent disease suggest that modern scientific approaches to disease identification are sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Physician Assistant Forum! This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn More