Assessment of Advanced Diagnostic Bronchoscopy Outcomes for Peripheral Lung Lesions: A Delphi Consensus Definition of Diagnostic Yield and Recommendations for Patient-centered Study Designs. An Official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians Research Statement.

Background: Advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy targeting the lung periphery has developed at an accelerated pace over the last two decades, whereas evidence to support introduction of innovative technologies has been variable and deficient. A major gap relates to variable reporting of diagnostic yield, in addition to limited comparative studies. Objectives: To develop a research framework to standardize the evaluation of advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy techniques for peripheral lung lesions. Specifically, we aimed for consensus on a robust definition of diagnostic yield, and we propose potential study designs at various stages of technology development. Methods: Panel members were selected for their diverse expertise. Workgroup meetings were conducted in virtual or hybrid format. The cochairs subsequently developed summary statements, with voting proceeding according to a modified Delphi process. The statement was cosponsored by the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians. Results: Consensus was reached on 15 statements on the definition of diagnostic outcomes and study designs. A strict definition of diagnostic yield should be used, and studies should be reported according to the STARD (Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) guidelines. Clinical or radiographic follow-up may be incorporated into the reference standard definition but should not be used to calculate diagnostic yield from the procedural encounter. Methodologically robust comparative studies, with incorporation of patient-reported outcomes, are needed to adequately assess and validate minimally invasive diagnostic technologies targeting the lung periphery. Conclusions: This American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians statement aims to provide a research framework that allows greater standardization of device validation efforts through clearly defined diagnostic outcomes and robust study designs. High-quality studies, both industry and publicly funded, can support subsequent health economic analyses and guide implementation decisions in various healthcare settings.

Multicenter Validation of a Customizable Scoring Tool for Selection of Trainees for a Residency or Fellowship Program. The EAST-IST Study.

RATIONALE: Few data have been published regarding scoring tools for selection of postgraduate medical trainee candidates that have wide applicability. OBJECTIVES: The authors present a novel scoring tool developed to assist postgraduate programs in generating an institution-specific rank list derived from selected elements of the U.S. Electronic Residency Application System (ERAS) application. METHODS: The authors developed and validated an ERAS and interview day scoring tool at five pulmonary and critical care fellowship programs: the ERAS Application Scoring Tool-Interview Scoring Tool. This scoring tool was then tested for intrarater correlation versus subjective rankings of ERAS applications. The process for development of the tool was performed at four other institutions, and it was performed alongside and compared with the "traditional" ranking methods at the five programs and compared with the submitted National Residency Match Program rank list. RESULTS: The ERAS Application Scoring Tool correlated highly with subjective faculty rankings at the primary institution (average Spearman's r = 0.77). The ERAS Application Scoring Tool-Interview Scoring Tool method correlated well with traditional ranking methodology at all five institutions (Spearman's r = 0.54, 0.65, 0.72, 0.77, and 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: This study validates a process for selecting and weighting components of the ERAS application and interview day to create a customizable, institution-specific tool for ranking candidates to postgraduate medical education programs. This scoring system can be used in future studies to compare the outcomes of fellowship training.