To analyze the agreement between the nurses evaluating radiodermatitis that used the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and the World Health Organization (WHO) scales.A prospective and longitudinal study conducted in 2016 to 2017, in a university hospital. We analyzed 855 images of irradiated sites of 100 breast cancer women during radiotherapy. In order to evaluate the agreement between 3 observers that evaluated theses irradiated sites Krippendorff's alpha and weighted kappa were obtained and analyzed.The pairwise agreement among the evaluators was fair and moderate (RTOG scale: 0.408, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.370-0.431; WHO scale: 0.559, 95% CI 0.529-0.590). In addition, the general agreement rates were 10.2% and 29.2%, respectively. When assessing the overall absolute agreement between the evaluators according with different phototypes and types of surgery, there was a fair agreement according to the RTOG scale when evaluating patients with phototype V or VI and mastectomy (3.7% and 8.8%, respectively).The RTOG and WHO scales should be used with caution in clinical practice to identify the prevalence of radiodermatitis and the severity. Another point of caution is that skin phototype and the type of surgery may influence the analysis outcome. An illustrative scale was designed and proposed, by our group, aiming to improve accuracy and agreement between evaluators that will be tested in subsequent clinical studies.
Objectives: To determine ADHD research priorities from the perspective of ADHD professionals internationally.
Method: A two-stage modified Delphi design was used. In Stage 1 (qualitative), participants listed research questions relating to ADHD that they perceived to be most important ( = 132).
Purpose: Our aim is to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of Acuity 360 telemedicine system, as compared to in-person clinic examination, in identifying clinically significant eye disease. Acuity 360 is a combination of commercially available ocular imaging devices used together to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the structures and diseases of the eye.
Methods: Observational cross-sectional study of consecutively examined patients where 19 remote examiners analyzed 80 patients using Acuity 360 images.
Background: As part of Electrophysiology Predictable and Sustainable Implementation of National Registries (EP PASSION), a multi-stakeholder collaboration between the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), academic and society partners, and cardiovascular implantable electronic device manufacturers, a 5-year bradycardia lead study transitioned from a traditional post-approval study (PAS) to a real-world data (RWD) approach using a novel method to evaluate chronic cardiac lead complications.
Methods: Lead complications were identified using a combination of diagnosis and procedure codes from 2013 to 2020 fee-for-service Medicare claims data along with BIOTRONIK device registration and Medical Device Reporting data from patients implanted between 2013 and 2015 with a Solia S lead. A proof-of-concept analysis was performed using McNemar's test to compare lead complications reported in the traditional PAS with lead complications identified in the RWD.
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the responses provided by ChatGPT-4o to the most frequently asked questions by patients regarding hip arthroscopy.
Materials And Methods: In this cross-sectional survey study, a new Google account without a search history was created to determine the 20 most frequently asked questions about hip arthroscopy via Google. These questions were asked to a new ChatGPT-4o account on June 1, 2024, and the responses were recorded.
Department of Pediatrics and Neonatology, OLVG, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, Emma Children's Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Objective: To examine the effects of clinicians' provision of (un)reasonable arguments on parent-related outcomes in neonatal (intensive) care (NICU), starting from the NICU Communication Framework.
Methods: A video-vignette experiment, in which we systematically varied clinicians' use of (reasonable, unreasonable, no) argumentation across two non-acute and two acute decision-making scenarios (3×4 design). Reasonable arguments were medically appropriate and constructive reasons to support the treatment plan, as defined by an expert panel.
