Cost-effectiveness of Diagnostic Tools to Establish the Presence of Peripheral Arterial Disease in People With Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of point-of-care duplex ultrasound (PAD-scan) and other bedside tests for the diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in people with diabetes. BACKGROUND: PAD is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, diabetic foot ulceration (DFU), and amputation in diabetic patients. Diagnosis enables optimization of therapies to manage these risks. PAD-scan can be performed by frontline staff and has been shown to be the most accurate bedside test. However, its cost-effectiveness has not been investigated. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to estimate the health outcomes and costs over 5 years of different testing strategies applied to a cohort of diabetic patients. Bedside tests investigated were PAD-scan, ankle-brachial pressure index, toe-brachial pressure index, audible and visual Doppler, transcutaneous pressure of oxygen, and pulse palpation. Health outcomes were incidence of new DFU, major cardiovascular events, amputation, death, and DFU healing rates. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: PAD-scan was the most cost-effective bedside test with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £11,391/quality-adjusted life years. PADscan had the highest probability (78.7%) of having the greatest net benefit at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life years. It reduced the number of amputations by 24% and the number of cardiovascular deaths by 10% over 5 years, compared to toe-brachial pressure index (next best alternative). PAD-scans superiority in incremental cost-effectiveness ratio occurred at a PAD prevalence threshold of 0.24. DISCUSSION: PAD-scan is a cost-effective test for the detection of PAD in patients with diabetes.

Quality assessment standards in artificial intelligence diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews: a meta-research study.

Artificial intelligence (AI) centred diagnostic systems are increasingly recognised as robust solutions in healthcare delivery pathways. In turn, there has been a concurrent rise in secondary research studies regarding these technologies in order to influence key clinical and policymaking decisions. It is therefore essential that these studies accurately appraise methodological quality and risk of bias within shortlisted trials and reports. In order to assess whether this critical step is performed, we undertook a meta-research study evaluating adherence to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool within AI diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews. A literature search was conducted on all studies published from 2000 to December 2020. Of 50 included reviews, 36 performed the quality assessment, of which 27 utilised the QUADAS-2 tool. Bias was reported across all four domains of QUADAS-2. Two hundred forty-three of 423 studies (57.5%) across all systematic reviews utilising QUADAS-2 reported a high or unclear risk of bias in the patient selection domain, 110 (26%) reported a high or unclear risk of bias in the index test domain, 121 (28.6%) in the reference standard domain and 157 (37.1%) in the flow and timing domain. This study demonstrates the incomplete uptake of quality assessment tools in reviews of AI-based diagnostic accuracy studies and highlights inconsistent reporting across all domains of quality assessment. Poor standards of reporting act as barriers to clinical implementation. The creation of an AI-specific extension for quality assessment tools of diagnostic accuracy AI studies may facilitate the safe translation of AI tools into clinical practice.

Quality of life and symptom assessment in paraesophageal hernias: a systematic literature review of reporting standards.

BACKGROUND: Paraesophageal hernias (PEH) present with a range of symptoms affecting physical and mental health. This systematic review aims to assess the quality of reporting standards for patients with PEH, identify the most frequently used quality of life (QOL) and symptom severity assessment tools in PEH and to ascertain additional symptoms reported by these patients not captured by these tools. METHODS: A systematic literature review according to PRISMA protocols was carried out following a literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases for studies published between January 1960 and May 2020. Published abstracts from conference proceedings were included. Data on QOL tools used and reported symptoms were extracted. RESULTS: This review included 220 studies reporting on 28 353 patients. A total of 46 different QOL and symptom severity tools were used across all studies, and 89 different symptoms were reported. The most frequently utilized QOL tool was the Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease-Health related quality of life questionnaire symptom severity instrument (47.7%), 57.2% of studies utilized more than 2 QOL tools and 'dysphagia' was the most frequently reported symptom, in 55.0% of studies. Notably, respiratory and cardiovascular symptoms, although less common than GI symptoms, were reported and included 'dyspnea' reported in 35 studies (15.9%). CONCLUSIONS: There lacks a QOL assessment tool that captures the range of symptoms associated with PEH. Reporting standards for this cohort must be improved to compare patient outcomes before and after surgery. Further investigations must seek to develop a PEH specific tool, that encompasses the relative importance of symptoms when considering surgical intervention and assessing symptomatic improvement following surgery.

Insights from a global snapshot of the change in elective colorectal practice due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to understand the impact of COVID-19 on colorectal cancer care globally and determine drivers of variation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate COVID-19 impact on colorectal cancer services globally and identify predictors for behaviour change. DESIGN: An online survey of colorectal cancer service change globally in May and June 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Attending or consultant surgeons involved in the care of patients with colorectal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in the delivery of diagnostics (diagnostic endoscopy), imaging for staging, therapeutics and surgical technique in the management of colorectal cancer. Predictors of change included increased hospital bed stress, critical care bed stress, mortality and world region. RESULTS: 191 responses were included from surgeons in 159 centers across 46 countries, demonstrating widespread service reduction with global variation. Diagnostic endoscopy was reduced in 93% of responses, even with low hospital stress and mortality; whilst rising critical care bed stress triggered complete cessation (p = 0.02). Availability of CT and MRI fell by 40-41%, with MRI significantly reduced with high hospital stress. Neoadjuvant therapy use in rectal cancer changed in 48% of responses, where centers which had ceased surgery increased its use (62 vs 30%, p = 0.04) as did those with extended delays to surgery (p<0.001). High hospital and critical care bed stresses were associated with surgeons forming more stomas (p<0.04), using more experienced operators (p<0.003) and decreased laparoscopy use (critical care bed stress only, p<0.001). Patients were also more actively prioritized for resection, with increased importance of co-morbidities and ICU need. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with severe restrictions in the availability of colorectal cancer services on a global scale, with significant variation in behaviours which cannot be fully accounted for by hospital burden or mortality.

Simulated Wound Assessment Using Digital Planimetry versus Three-Dimensional Cameras: Implications for Clinical Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Clinical management of wounds can benefit from objective measures of response to treatment. Wound surface area and volume are objective measures of wound healing. Using a synthetic wound model, we compare the accuracy and reproducibility of 2 commercially available 3-dimensional (3D) cameras against planimetry and water displacement. METHODS: Twelve ulcers of various sizes and colors were reproduced in modeling clay and cured. Five naive observers used digital planimetry, water displacement, Eykona camera (Fuel 3D, UK), and Silhouette camera (ARANZ, New Zealand) to measure the wounds. RESULTS: When compared with traditional planimetry, wound surface area measurement with Eykona and Silhouette tended to underestimate wounds by 1.7% and 3.7%, respectively. Spearman correlation coefficients were 0.94 (Eykona) and 0.92 (Silhouette). Intraclass correlations for planimetry and the 2 cameras were all 1. Eykona and Silhouette tended to underestimate wound volumes when compared with water displacement by 58% and 23%, respectively. Spearman correlation coefficients were 0.92 (Eykona) and 0.72 (Silhouette). Intraclass correlations for water displacement and the two cameras were all 1. DISCUSSION: Serial accurate objective area measurements are feasible as part of ongoing clinical assessment of wounds. 3D cameras are reliable but have not shown superior accuracy to manual planimetry, and financial concerns and IT integration may limit general clinical usage. Volume measurements of wounds are practicable as part of clinical care.