Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'typing'.
Found 3 results
Hello everybody, For few months now when I try to write on the computer I can no longer at least with my right hand have my usual typing speed my right hand is like rusty and my fingers twisting the strange movements to reach the keys on the keyboard so I do a lot more difficulties to write to the computer and many more typos by double or triple time. As for all the other actions of everyday life everyday life take place normally without any obstacle The only problem I encounter is when I type or I try to type, thing that I do often for work. At the beginning I thought about a problem of carpal tunnel or nerves tired from too much writing in fact the thing was manifested after a period in which I spent many hours of the day writing for many days. even after a week of rest, without having touched the computer, the problem has not been solved and after a few months it is still present a few months ago I was diagnosed probably celiac due to the positive results to antibodies from the blood tests but I have not yet done the biopsy that should confirm the disease and for this I have not yet completely eliminated the gluten from my diet because I was told that otherwise the biopsy would be invalidated. I have already taken an exam (EMG) from which nothing was found of abnormal neither the arms nor legs soon I will do further tests by both a neurologist and a rheumatologist in addition to the biopsy that I will have to perform. From your direct or indirect experience could these my symptoms be linked to celiac disease? Even writing this message I prefer now to do it with voice commands rather than straining my right hand. And I'm a 30 yo with very high skills in computer science and I used to type very very fast (my left hand still do) Sorry for my mistakes in english (it's not my mother tongue) Hope to read from you soon
Celiac.com 08/10/2015 - The presence of specific human leukocyte antigen-DQ2 and DQ8 seems to be necessary for celiac disease development, but its usefulness for screening is still uncertain. A research team recently set out to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of human leukocyte antigen typing tests for celiac disease screening. The research team included A. Díaz-Redondo, J. Miranda-Bautista, J. García-Lledó, J.P. Gisbert, and L. Menchén. They are variously affiliated with the Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón in Madrid, Spain, and with the Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Madrid, Spain. The team conducted a systematic review of published studies assessing accuracy of human leukocyte antigen DQ2 and DQ8 typing for the detection of celiac disease. They searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for the period running from 1st January 2004 until 31st December 2013 and used two independent researchers to carry out selection and classification of studies, data extraction and analysis. The team conducted meta-analysis that combined sensitivities, specificities and likelihood ratios of HLA-DQ2 and DQ8 for the diagnosis of celiac disease and ended up with six studies that included a total of 1303 people. The results showed pooled sensitivity at 98%, with 95% confidence interval: 97-99. Overall specificity was 45% (95% confidence interval: 41-48). Regarding specificity, studies were heterogeneous and a the team ran a subgroup analysis according to the type of population included. Overall negative likelihood ratio was 0.05 (0.03-0.09). Because it offers high sensitivity and low negative likelihood ratio, the team concludes that human leukocyte antigen-DQ2/DQ8 typing makes an appropriate test for ruling out celiac disease in the general population suffering related symptoms, and even more in at risk population. Source: Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2015 Jul;107(7):423-429.
Celiac.com 09/28/2007 - Figures concerning the diagnostic accuracy of various serologic test and HLA-DQ typing for diagnosing celiac disease have largely come from case–control studies. A team of doctors recently set out to assess the performance of serologic testing and HLA-DQ typing in the diagnosis of celiac disease. Results of their study were published recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The team was made up of Muhammed Hadithi, MD; B. Mary E. von Blomberg, PhD; J. Bart A. Crusius, PhD; Elisabeth Bloemena, MD, PhD; Pieter J. Kostense, PhD; Jos W.R. Meijer, MD, PhD; Chris J.J. Mulder, MD, PhD; Coen D.A. Stehouwer, MD, PhD; and Amado S. Peña, MD, PhD Their study looked at patients who had been referred for small bowel biopsy to determine weather they had celiac disease, and evaluated the effectiveness of serologic testing for celiac disease, specifically of antigliadin antibodies (AGA), antitransglutaminase antibodies (TGA), and anti-endomysium antibodies (EMA) and HLA-DQ typing. Data was measured by comparing the performance of serologic testing and HLA-DQ against a reference baseline of abnormal histologic findings and clinical resolution after a gluten-free diet. Of 463 participants, sixteen had celiac disease (prevalence = 3.46% [95% CI, 1.99% to 5.55%]). Testing positive on both TGA and EMA showed a corresponding sensitivity of 81% (CI, 54% to 95.9%), specificity of 99.3% (CI, 98.0% to 99.9%), and negative predictive value of 99.3% (CI, 98.0% to 99.9%). A positive test for either HLA-DQ type increased both sensitivity (100% [CI, 79% to 100%]) and negative predictive value (100% [CI, 98.6% to 100%]), while testing negative for both minimized the negative likelihood ratio (0.00 [CI, 0.00 to 0.40]) and post-test probability (0% [CI, 0% to 1.4%]). Adding HLA-DQ typing to TGA and EMA testing, and adding serologic testing to HLA-DQ typing, saw no corresponding difference in test performance compared with either testing strategy alone. Overall results show TGA and EMA testing were the most sensitive serum antibody tests and a negative HLA-DQ type excluded the celiac disease from the diagnosis. However, the addition of HLA-DQ typing to TGA and EMA testing, and the addition of serologic testing to HLA-DQ typing, provided no change of test performance compared with either form of testing alone. Finally, the findings were somewhat limited, as low number of overall cases of celiac disease rule out meaningful comparisons of testing strategies. Annals of Internal Medicine (volume 147, pages 294-302)