Comparing quality of breast cancer care in the Netherlands and Norway by federated propensity score analytics.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to benchmark and compare breast cancer care quality indicators (QIs) between Norway and the Netherlands using federated analytics preventing transfer of patient-level data. METHODS: Breast cancer patients (2017-2018) were retrieved from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Cancer Registry of Norway. Five European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) QIs were assessed: two on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), two on surgical approaches, and one on postoperative radiotherapy. The QI outcomes were calculated using 'Vantage 6' federated Propensity Score Stratification (PSS). Likelihood of receiving a treatment was expressed in odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: In total, 39,163 patients were included (32,786 from the Netherlands and 6377 from Norway). PSS scores were comparable to the crude outcomes of the QIs. The Netherlands scored higher on the QI 'proportions of patients preoperatively examined with breast MRI' [37% vs.17.5%; OR 2.8 (95% CI 2.7-2.9)], the 'proportions of patients receiving primary systemic therapy examined with breast MRI' [83.3% vs. 70.8%; OR 2.3 (95% CI 1.3-3.3)], and 'proportion of patients receiving a single breast operation' [95.2% vs. 91.5%; OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.4-2.2)]. Country scores for 'immediate breast reconstruction' and 'postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery' were comparable. The EUSOMA standard was achieved in both countries for 4/5 indicators. CONCLUSION: Both countries achieved high scores on the QIs. Differences were observed in the use of MRI and proportion of patients receiving single surgery. The federated approach supports future possibilities on benchmark QIs without transfer of privacy-sensitive data.

Reliability and validity of the Microgate Gyko for measuring range of motion of the low back.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to test the inter- and intrarater reliability and the concurrent validity of the Gyko Microgate for the assessment of lumbar range of motion. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out with two groups of healthy participants. The first group, consisting of 91 subjects, was tested to determine the inter- and intrarater reliability. Concurrent validity was assessed with comparisons with an optical motion system (Vicon) in a second group of 20 subjects. Lumbar range of motion in flexion, extension, left and right lateral flexion were performed. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated for both analyses. Measurement error was calculated with standard error of the measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC) and Limits of Agreement (LoA). ICCs were considered good when ICC ≥0.80 and excellent with ICC ≥0.90. RESULTS: Interrater reliability was good to excellent with ICCs ranging from 0.82 to 0.94. Intrarater reliability was good to excellent with ICCs ranging from 0.84 to 0.95. Concurrent validity was excellent with ICCs varying from 0.90 to 0.95. LoA were highest in interrater reliability and smallest in concurrent validity. SEM ranged from 2.2 to 4.0° in lateral flexion left and flexion respectively. SDC varied from 6.1 to 11.1°. CONCLUSION: Gyko has good inter- and intrarater reliability and excellent concurrent validity compared to the optical motion system for lumbar range of motion. Gyko may be considered as objective measure to measure range of motion for clinical purposes, however trials with patients are currently lacking.