Objective: To compare the retrospective decision of an expert panel who assessed likelihood of acute compartment syndrome (ACS) in a patient with a high-risk tibia fracture with decision to perform fasciotomy.
Design: Prospective observational study.
Setting: Seven Level 1 trauma centers.
Patients/participants: One hundred eighty-two adults with severe tibia fractures.
Main Outcome Measurements: Diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and receiver-operator curve) of an expert panel's assessment of likelihood ACS compared with fasciotomy as the reference diagnostic standard.
Secondary Outcomes: The interrater reliability of the expert panel as measured by the Krippendorff alpha. Expert panel consensus was determined using the percent of panelists in the majority group of low (expert panel likelihood of ≤0.3), uncertain (0.3-0.7), or high (>0.7) likelihood of ACS.
Results: Comparing fasciotomy (the diagnostic standard) and the expert panel's assessment as the diagnostic classification (test), the expert panel's determination of uncertain or high likelihood of ACS (threshold >0.3) had a sensitivity of 0.90 (0.70, 0.99), specificity of 0.95 (0.90, 0.98), PPV of 0.70 (0.50, 0.86), and NPV of 0.99 (0.95, 1.00). When a threshold of >0.7 was set as a positive diagnosis, the expert panel assessment had a sensitivity of 0.67 (0.43, 0.85), specificity of 0.98 (0.95, 1.00), PPV of 0.82 (0.57, 0.96), and NPV of 0.96 (0.91, 0.98).
Conclusion: In our study, the retrospective assessment of an expert panel of the likelihood of ACS has good specificity and excellent NPV for fasciotomy, but only low-to-moderate sensitivity and PPV. The discordance between the expert panel-assessed likelihood of ACS and the decision to perform fasciotomy suggests that concern regarding potential diagnostic bias in studies of ACS is warranted.
Level Of Evidence: Diagnostic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BOT.0000000000002284 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
A cross-sectional online survey was conducted. A high proportion of the Chinese breast cancer (BC) physician respondents (n=77) would prescribe extended adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) with aromatase inhibitors (AI) beyond 5 years for postmenopausal females with BC, especially those with higher risk. Respondents with ≥15 years of clinical experience were more likely to prescribe a longer duration of AET for low-risk patients.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFToward a national framework for the secondary use of health data: an American Medical Informatics Association White Paper.
J Am Med Inform Assoc
March 2007
American Medical Informatics Association, 4915 St. Elmo Avenue, Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.
Secondary use of health data applies personal health information (PHI) for uses outside of direct health care delivery. It includes such activities as analysis, research, quality and safety measurement, public health, payment, provider certification or accreditation, marketing, and other business applications, including strictly commercial activities. Secondary use of health data can enhance health care experiences for individuals, expand knowledge about disease and appropriate treatments, strengthen understanding about effectiveness and efficiency of health care systems, support public health and security goals, and aid businesses in meeting customers' needs.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!