Dataset Information

The Next Generation of Clinical Decision Making Tools: Development of a Real-Time Prediction Tool for Outcome of Prostate Biopsy in Response to a Continuously Evolving Prostate Cancer Landscape.

ABSTRACT: We evaluate whether annual updating of the PCPT Risk Calculator would improve institutional validation compared to static use of the PCPT Risk Calculator alone.Data from 5 international cohorts including SABOR, Cleveland Clinic, ProtecT, Tyrol and Durham VA, comprising 18,400 biopsies, were used to evaluate an institution specific annual recalibration of the PCPT Risk Calculator. Using all prior years as a training set and the current year as the test set, annual recalibrations of the PCPT Risk Calculator were compared to static use of the PCPT Risk Calculator in terms of AUC and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit statistic.For predicting high grade disease the median AUC (higher is better) of the recalibrated PCPT Risk Calculator (static PCPT Risk Calculator) across all test years for the 5 cohorts was 67.3 (67.5), 65.0 (60.4), 73.4 (73.4), 73.9 (74.1) and 69.6 (67.2), respectively, and median Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit statistics indicated better fit for recalibration compared to the static PCPT Risk Calculator for Cleveland Clinic, ProtecT and the Durham VA but not for SABOR and Tyrol. For predicting overall cancer median AUC was 63.5 (62.7), 61.0 (57.3), 62.1 (62.5), 66.9 (67.3) and 68.5 (65.5), respectively, and median Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit statistics indicated a better fit for recalibration in all cohorts except for Tyrol.A simple method has been provided to tailor the PCPT Risk Calculator to individual hospitals to optimize its accuracy for the patient population at hand.

SUBMITTER: Strobl AN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4475467 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Next Generation of Clinical Decision Making Tools: Development of a Real-Time Prediction Tool for Outcome of Prostate Biopsy in Response to a Continuously Evolving Prostate Cancer Landscape.

Strobl Andreas N AN Thompson Ian M IM Vickers Andrew J AJ Ankerst Donna P DP

The Journal of urology 20150128 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>We evaluate whether annual updating of the PCPT Risk Calculator would improve institutional validation compared to static use of the PCPT Risk Calculator alone.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Data from 5 international cohorts including SABOR, Cleveland Clinic, ProtecT, Tyrol and Durham VA, comprising 18,400 biopsies, were used to evaluate an institution specific annual recalibration of the PCPT Risk Calculator. Using all prior years as a training set and the current year as the tes ...[more]

PMID: 25636656

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPublic health professionals are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision making to inform practice and policy decisions. Evidence-informed decision making involves the use of research evidence along with expertise, existing public health resources, knowledge about community health issues, the local context and community, and the political climate. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools has identified a seven step process for evidence-informed decision making. Tools have been developed to support public health professionals as they work through each of these steps. This paper provides an overview of tools used in three Canadian public health departments involved in a study to develop capacity for evidence-informed decision making.MethodsAs part of a knowledge translation and exchange intervention, a Knowledge Broker worked with public health professionals to identify and apply tools for use with each of the steps of evidence-informed decision making. The Knowledge Broker maintained a reflective journal and interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of decision makers and public health professionals. This paper presents qualitative analysis of the perceived usefulness and usability of the tools.ResultsTools were used in the health departments to assist in: question identification and clarification; searching for the best available research evidence; assessing the research evidence for quality through critical appraisal; deciphering the 'actionable message(s)' from the research evidence; tailoring messages to the local context to ensure their relevance and suitability; deciding whether and planning how to implement research evidence in the local context; and evaluating the effectiveness of implementation efforts. Decision makers provided descriptions of how the tools were used within the health departments and made suggestions for improvement. Overall, the tools were perceived as valuable for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making.ConclusionTools are available to support the process of evidence-informed decision making among public health professionals. The usability and usefulness of these tools for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making are discussed, including recommendations for the tools' application in other public health settings beyond this study. Knowledge and awareness of these tools may assist other health professionals in their efforts to implement evidence-informed practice.

Project description:BackgroundMinistries of health in low- and middle-income countries often lack timely quality data for data-driven decision making in healthcare networks. We describe the design and implementation of decision-support electronic tools by the Ministry of Health of the State of Chiapas, in Mexico, as part of Salud Mesoamerica Initiative.MethodsThree electronic decision-support tools were designed through an iterative process focused on streamlined implementation: 1) to collect and report health facility data at health facilities; 2) to compile and analyze data at health district and central level; and, 3) to support stratified sampling of health facilities. Data was collected for five composite indicators measuring availability of equipment, medicines, and supplies for maternal and child health. Quality Assurance Teams collected data, evaluated results and supported quality improvement. Data was also analyzed at the central level and health districts for decision-making.ResultsData from 300 health facilities in four health districts was collected and analyzed (November 2014-June 2015). The first wave revealed gaps on availability of equipment and supplies in more than half of health facilities. Electronic tools provided the ministry of health officers new ways to visualize data, identify patterns and make hypothesis on root-causes. Between the first and second measurement, the number of missing items decreased, and actions performed by quality improvement teams became more proactive. In the final measurement, 89.7-100% of all health facilities achieved all the required items for each indicator.ConclusionsOur experience could help guide others seeking to implement electronic decision-support tools in low- and middle-income countries. Electronic decision-support tools supported data-driven decision-making by identifying gaps on heatmaps and graphs at the health facility, subdistrict, district or state level. Through a rapid improvement process, the Ministry of Health met targets of externally verified indicators. Using available information technology resources facilitated prompt implementation and adoption of technology.

Project description:BackgroundTherapeutic decision-making in oncology is a complex process because physicians must consider many forms of medical data and protocols. Another challenge for physicians is to clearly communicate their decision-making process to patients to ensure informed consent. Computer-based decision tools have the potential to play a valuable role in supporting this process.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to investigate the extent to which computer-based decision tools have been successfully adopted in oncology consultations to improve patient-physician joint therapeutic decision-making.MethodsThis review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 checklist and guidelines. A literature search was conducted on February 4, 2021, across the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (from 2005 to January 28, 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (December 2020), MEDLINE (from 1946 to February 4, 2021), Embase (from 1947 to February 4, 2021), Web of Science (from 1900 to 2021), Scopus (from 1969 to 2021), and PubMed (from 1991 to 2021). We used a snowball approach to identify additional studies by searching the reference lists of the studies included for full-text review. Additional supplementary searches of relevant journals and gray literature websites were conducted. The reviewers screened the articles eligible for review for quality and inclusion before data extraction.ResultsThere are relatively few studies looking at the use of computer-based decision tools in oncology consultations. Of the 4431 unique articles obtained from the searches, only 10 (0.22%) satisfied the selection criteria. From the 10 selected studies, 8 computer-based decision tools were identified. Of the 10 studies, 6 (60%) were conducted in the United States. Communication and information-sharing were improved between physicians and patients. However, physicians did not change their habits to take advantage of computer-assisted decision-making tools or the information they provide. On average, the use of these computer-based decision tools added approximately 5 minutes to the total length of consultations. In addition, some physicians felt that the technology increased patients' anxiety.ConclusionsOf the 10 selected studies, 6 (60%) demonstrated positive outcomes, 1 (10%) showed negative results, and 3 (30%) were neutral. Adoption of computer-based decision tools during oncology consultations continues to be low. This review shows that information-sharing and communication between physicians and patients can be improved with the assistance of technology. However, the lack of integration with electronic health records is a barrier. This review provides key requirements for enhancing the chance of success of future computer-based decision tools. However, it does not show the effects of health care policies, regulations, or business administration on physicians' propensity to adopt the technology. Nevertheless, it is important that future research address the influence of these higher-level factors as well.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42021226087; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021226087.

Dataset Information

The Next Generation of Clinical Decision Making Tools: Development of a Real-Time Prediction Tool for Outcome of Prostate Biopsy in Response to a Continuously Evolving Prostate Cancer Landscape.

Publications

The Next Generation of Clinical Decision Making Tools: Development of a Real-Time Prediction Tool for Outcome of Prostate Biopsy in Response to a Continuously Evolving Prostate Cancer Landscape.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets