Aging clinical and experimental research · 2022
Understanding current UK practice for the incidental identification of vertebral fragility fractures from CT scans: an expert elicitation study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dalal Garima, Bromiley Paul A, Kariki Eleni P, Luetchens Shawn, Cootes Timothy F, Payne Katherine
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is an emerging interest in using automated approaches to enable the incidental identification of vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) on existing medical images visualising the spine.
AIM: To quantify values, and the degree of uncertainty associated with them, for the incidental identification of VFFs from computed tomography (CT) scans in current practice.
METHODS: An expert elicitation exercise was conducted to generate point estimates and measures of uncertainty for four values representing the probability of: VFF being correctly reported by the radiologist; the absence of VFF being correctly assessed by the radiologist; being referred for management when a VFF is identified; having a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan after general practitioner (GP) referral. Data from a sample of seven experts in the diagnosis and management of people with VFFs were pooled using mathematical aggregation.
RESULTS: The estimated mean values for each probability parameter were: VFF being correctly reported by the radiologist = 0.25 (standard deviation (SD): 0.21); absence of VFF being correctly assessed by the radiologist = 0.89 (0.10); being referred for management when a VFF is identified by the radiologist = 0.15 (0.12); having a DXA scan after GP referral = 0.66 (0.28).
DISCUSSION: These estimates could be used to facilitate the subsequent early economic evaluation of potential new approaches to improve the health outcomes of people with VFFs.
CONCLUSION: In the absence of epidemiological studies, this study produced point estimates and measures of uncertainty for key parameters needed to describe current pathways for the incidental diagnosis of VFFs.
AIM: To quantify values, and the degree of uncertainty associated with them, for the incidental identification of VFFs from computed tomography (CT) scans in current practice.
METHODS: An expert elicitation exercise was conducted to generate point estimates and measures of uncertainty for four values representing the probability of: VFF being correctly reported by the radiologist; the absence of VFF being correctly assessed by the radiologist; being referred for management when a VFF is identified; having a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan after general practitioner (GP) referral. Data from a sample of seven experts in the diagnosis and management of people with VFFs were pooled using mathematical aggregation.
RESULTS: The estimated mean values for each probability parameter were: VFF being correctly reported by the radiologist = 0.25 (standard deviation (SD): 0.21); absence of VFF being correctly assessed by the radiologist = 0.89 (0.10); being referred for management when a VFF is identified by the radiologist = 0.15 (0.12); having a DXA scan after GP referral = 0.66 (0.28).
DISCUSSION: These estimates could be used to facilitate the subsequent early economic evaluation of potential new approaches to improve the health outcomes of people with VFFs.
CONCLUSION: In the absence of epidemiological studies, this study produced point estimates and measures of uncertainty for key parameters needed to describe current pathways for the incidental diagnosis of VFFs.