Lumbar puncture for children is a difficult technique and is an important aspect of clinical teaching for residents and interns in the neurological department of pediatrics. In this article, we summarized techniques and experiences of clinical teaching in pediatric lumbar puncture, and discussed difficulty, variability and remedial strategy for lumbar puncture in children. Narrow intervertebral space, poor compliance and resistance of children are the main difficulty for pediatric lumbar puncture. The causes of failure for medical students include different sensations of breakthrough when using different needles, choice of un-preferable intervertebral space, excessive vertical angle for needling performance, deviation from the longitudinal midline of the body, incorrect anesthesia, and exceeding resistance of children patients. Corresponding remedial strategy for failure of puncture includes informing students of the technique and variability of puncture, training experienced staff for second- and third-line substitutes, and reinforcing nursing after surgery. This summary of techniques for pediatric lumbar puncture and experiences of clinical teaching will benefit pediatricians and their clinical training.
Objective To explore the interference of recent use of antibiotics in the sensitivities of different methods for the detection of Helicobacter pylori (Hp) in children. Methods From June 2015 to December 2017, children who were highly suspected of Hp infection and required gastroscopy were divided into the antibiotic group and the control group according to the recent use of antibiotics, with 200 cases in each group. The use of antibiotics of children in the antibiotic group was analyzed. The children in the two groups completed five methods of Hp detection, including rapid urease test (RUT), 13C-urea breath test (13C-UBT), pathological Warthin-Starry staining, colloidal gold method for measuring Hp immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody, and enzyme linked immunosorbent assay method for measuring Hp stool antigen (HpSA). Comparative analyses of data were done. Results The positive rate of RUT was 36.5% in the antibiotic group and 75.0% in the control group (P<0.05). The positive rate and value of13C-UBT were 59.0% and 13.6±4.7 in the antibiotic group, and 78.0% and 41.7±6.6 in the control group (P<0.05). The positive rate of pathological biopsy was 48.0% in the antibiotic group and 68.0% in the control group (P<0.05), and L-forms were found in 80.9% of the Hp-positive specimens in the antibiotic group. The positive rate of IgM antibody was 54.5% in the antibiotic group and 65.5% in the control group (P<0.05). The positive rate of HpSA was 38.0% in the antibiotic group and 69.0% in the control group (P<0.05). In the antibiotic group, only 12.5% of the children used antibiotics for eradication of Hp and 87.5% for non Hp eradication. Conclusions Under the interference of antibiotics use, the sensitivity of 13C-UBT is the highest among the five methods for Hp detection, and the sensitivities of RUT and HpSA are very low. For children who could not cooperate with 13C-UBT, the sensitivity of IgM detection is relatively high. For children who need gastroscopy, prolonged chromogenic time for RUT and multi-point pathological biopsy can reduce misdiagnosis.
Objective To explore the use of ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) in pediatric diagnosis, treatment and doctor-patient communication, evaluate the professionalism and accuracy of the medical advice provided, and assess its ability to provide psychological support. Methods The knowledge databases of ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 versions as of April 2023 were selected. A total of 30 diagnosis and treatment questions and 10 doctor-patient communication questions regarding the pediatric urinary system were submitted to ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0, and the answers to ChatGPT were evaluated. Results The answers to the 40 questions answered by ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 all reached the qualified level. The answers to 30 diagnostic and treatment questions in ChatGPT 4.0 version were superior to those in ChatGPT 3.5 version (P=0.024). There was no statistically significant difference in the answers to the 10 doctor-patient communication questions answered by ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 versions (P=0.727). For prevention, single symptom, and disease diagnosis and treatment questions, ChatGPT’s answer scores were relatively high. For questions related to the diagnosis and treatment of complex medical conditions, ChatGPT’s answer scores were relatively low. Conclusion ChatGPT has certain value in assisting pediatric diagnosis, treatment and doctor-patient communication, but the medical advice provided by ChatGPT cannot completely replace the professional judgment and personal care of doctors.