Psoriasis Prevalence and Severity by Expert Elicitation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
An estimated 2-4% of Western populations are thought to have psoriasis, with a regional incidence ranging from 0.09% to 11.43%. Variance in estimates is a result of differences in study populations, methodology, regional differences, and definitions of disease. Reliable prevalence estimates of plaque psoriasis are challenging to establish. Further, the distribution of psoriasis severity in the population is unknown. This study aims to establish the utility of expert elicitation (EE) as a method for estimating unknown parameters in dermatology by (1) estimating the prevalence of psoriasis in the adult population, and (2) estimating previously unknown disease severity distribution.Methods
An expert panel of 11 Canadian dermatologists with demonstrated expertise in psoriasis was formed. A proof-of-concept EE exercise estimated psoriasis prevalence in the general population in Canada, followed by estimation of psoriasis disease severity distribution by body surface area (BSA). Expert estimates were consolidated using Bayesian methods to statistically model the data and represent uncertainty.Results
The median prevalence of psoriasis in the adult population using the Bayesian estimate was 3.0% (95% credibility interval, 2.7-3.3%), compared with the estimated mean prevalence of 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 2.2-4.9%). By EE, the estimated cumulative distribution of disease severity assessed by BSA suggests that approximately 50% of patients have a BSA of < 3% and 78% of patients have a BSA of < 10%, with only 2% having a BSA of > 50%.Conclusion
The EE approach resulted in prevalence estimates that had a narrow distribution and were consistent with published literature, supporting its value in dermatology as a complementary method to help guide decision-making in areas where evidence is scarce or uncertain.
SUBMITTER: Papp KA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8163919 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe evidence used to inform health care decision making (HCDM) is typically uncertain. In these situations, the experience of experts is essential to help decision makers reach a decision. Structured expert elicitation (referred to as elicitation) is a quantitative process to capture experts' beliefs. There is heterogeneity in the existing elicitation methodology used in HCDM, and it is not clear if existing guidelines are appropriate for use in this context. In this article, we seek to establish reference case methods for elicitation to inform HCDM.MethodsWe collated the methods available for elicitation using reviews and critique. In addition, we conducted controlled experiments to test the accuracy of alternative methods. We determined the suitability of the methods choices for use in HCDM according to a predefined set of principles for elicitation in HCDM, which we have also generated. We determined reference case methods for elicitation in HCDM for health technology assessment (HTA).ResultsIn almost all methods choices available for elicitation, we found a lack of empirical evidence supporting recommendations. Despite this, it is possible to define reference case methods for HTA. The reference methods include a focus on gathering experts with substantive knowledge of the quantities being elicited as opposed to those trained in probability and statistics, eliciting quantities that the expert might observe directly, and individual elicitation of beliefs, rather than solely consensus methods. It is likely that there are additional considerations for decision makers in health care outside of HTA.ConclusionsThe reference case developed here allows the use of different methods, depending on the decision-making setting. Further applied examples of elicitation methods would be useful. Experimental evidence comparing methods should be generated.
| S-EPMC8777312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of the current study was to apply and evaluate a procedure to elicit expert judgments about correlations, and to update this information with empirical data. The result is a face-to-face group elicitation procedure with as its central element a trial roulette question that elicits experts' judgments expressed as distributions. During the elicitation procedure, a concordance probability question was used to provide feedback to the experts on their judgments. We evaluated the elicitation procedure in terms of validity and reliability by means of an application with a small sample of experts. Validity means that the elicited distributions accurately represent the experts' judgments. Reliability concerns the consistency of the elicited judgments over time. Four behavioral scientists provided their judgments with respect to the correlation between cognitive potential and academic performance for two separate populations enrolled at a specific school in the Netherlands that provides special education to youth with severe behavioral problems: youth with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and youth with diagnoses other than ASD. Measures of face-validity, feasibility, convergent validity, coherence, and intra-rater reliability showed promising results. Furthermore, the current study illustrates the use of the elicitation procedure and elicited distributions in a social science application. The elicited distributions were used as a prior for the correlation, and updated with data for both populations collected at the school of interest. The current study shows that the newly developed elicitation procedure combining the trial roulette method with the elicitation of correlations is a promising tool, and that the results of the procedure are useful as prior information in a Bayesian analysis.
| S-EPMC5282462 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The concept of professional judgement underpins the way in which an occupational hygienist assesses an exposure problem. Despite the importance placed on professional judgement in the discipline, a method of assessment to characterise accuracy has not been available. In this paper, we assess the professional judgement of four occupational hygienists ('experts') when completing exposure assessments on a range of airborne contaminants across a number of job roles within a surface mining environment in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. The job roles assessed were project driller, mobile equipment operator, fixed plant maintainer, and drill and blast operator. The contaminants of interest were respirable crystalline silica, respirable dust, and inhalable dust. The novel approach of eliciting exposure estimates focusing on contaminant concentration and attribution of an exposure standard estimate was used. The majority of the elicited values were highly skewed; therefore, a scaled Beta distribution were fitted. These elicited fitted distributions were then compared to measured data distributions, the results of which had been collected as part of an occupational hygiene program assessing full-shift exposures to the same contaminants and job roles assessed by the experts. Our findings suggest that the participating experts within this study tended to overestimate exposures. In addition, the participating experts were more accurate at estimating percentage of an exposure standard than contaminant concentration. We demonstrate that this elicitation approach and the encoding methodology contained within can be applied to assess accuracy of exposure judgements which will impact on worker protection and occupational health outcomes.
| S-EPMC9176777 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To perform a Bayesian analysis of the Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial I (MUTT I) using expert opinion as a prior belief.MUTT I was a randomized clinical trial comparing topical natamycin or voriconazole for treating filamentous fungal keratitis. A questionnaire elicited expert opinion on the best treatment of fungal keratitis before MUTT I results were available. A Bayesian analysis was performed using the questionnaire data as a prior belief and the MUTT I primary outcome (3-month visual acuity) by frequentist analysis as a likelihood.Corneal experts had a 41.1% prior belief that natamycin improved 3-month visual acuity compared with voriconazole. The Bayesian analysis found a 98.4% belief for natamycin treatment compared with voriconazole treatment for filamentous cases as a group (mean improvement 1.1 Snellen lines, 95% credible interval 0.1-2.1). The Bayesian analysis estimated a smaller treatment effect than the MUTT I frequentist analysis result of 1.8-line improvement with natamycin versus voriconazole (95% confidence interval 0.5-3.0, P = 0.006). For Fusarium cases, the posterior demonstrated a 99.7% belief for natamycin treatment, whereas non-Fusarium cases had a 57.3% belief.The Bayesian analysis suggests that natamycin is superior to voriconazole when filamentous cases are analyzed as a group. Subgroup analysis of Fusarium cases found improvement with natamycin compared with voriconazole, whereas there was almost no difference between treatments for non-Fusarium cases. These results were consistent with, though smaller in effect size than, the MUTT I primary outcome by frequentist analysis. The accordance between analyses further validates the trial results. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00996736.).
| S-EPMC3684218 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe EU 6th Framework Program (FP)-funded Health and Environment Network (HENVINET) aimed to support informed policy making by facilitating the availability of relevant knowledge on different environmental health issues. An approach was developed by which scientific agreement, disagreement, and knowledge gaps could be efficiently identified, and expert advice prepared in a way that is usable for policy makers. There were two aims of the project: 1) to apply the tool to a relevant issue; the potential health impacts of the widely used plasticizers, phthalates, and 2) to evaluate the method and the tool by asking both scientific experts and the target audience, namely policy makers and stakeholders, for their opinions.MethodsThe tool consisted of an expert consultation in several steps on the issue of phthalates in environmental health. A diagram depicting the cause-effect chain, from the production and use of phthalates to potential health impacts, was prepared based on existing reviews. This was used as a basis for an online questionnaire, through which experts in the field were consulted. The results of this first round of consultation laid the foundation for a new questionnaire answered by an expert panel that, subsequently, also discussed approaches and results in a workshop. One major task of the expert panel was to pinpoint priorities from the cause-effect chain according to their impact on the extent of potential health risks and their relevance for reducing uncertainty. The results were condensed into a policy brief that was sent to policy makers and stakeholders for their evaluation.ResultsThe experts agreed about the substantial knowledge gaps within the field of phthalates. The top three priorities for further research and policy action were: 1) intrauterine exposure, 2) reproductive toxicology, and 3) exposure from medical devices. Although not all relevant information from the cause-effect chain is known for phthalates, most experts thought that there are enough indications to justify a precautionary approach and to restrict their general use. Although some of the experts expressed some scepticism about such a tool, most felt that important issues were highlighted.ConclusionsThe approach used was an efficient way at summarising priority knowledge gaps as a starting point for health risk assessment of compounds, based on their relevance for the risk assessment outcome. We conclude that this approach is useful for supporting policy makers with state-of-the-art scientific knowledge weighed by experts. The method can assist future evidence-based policy making.
| S-EPMC3388473 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This article presents a dataset of service design skills which service design experts value as important requirements for design team members. Purposive sampling and a chain referral approach were used to recruit appropriate experts to conduct questionnaire-based research. Using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), pairwise skills-rating questionnaires were designed to elicit the experts’ responses. The resulting dataset was processed using AHP algorithms programmed in R programming language. The transparent data and available codes of the research may be reused by design practitioners and researchers for replication and further analysis. This paper offers a reproduceable research process and associated dataset for conducting multiple-criteria decision analysis with expert purposive sampling. Measurement(s)perspective of experts on important service design skills for design team membersTechnology Type(s)pairwise skills-rating questionnairesFactor Type(s)service design skills
| S-EPMC9203804 | biostudies-literature
Project description:MotivationPrecision medicine requires the ability to predict the efficacies of different treatments for a given individual using high-dimensional genomic measurements. However, identifying predictive features remains a challenge when the sample size is small. Incorporating expert knowledge offers a promising approach to improve predictions, but collecting such knowledge is laborious if the number of candidate features is very large.ResultsWe introduce a probabilistic framework to incorporate expert feedback about the impact of genomic measurements on the outcome of interest and present a novel approach to collect the feedback efficiently, based on Bayesian experimental design. The new approach outperformed other recent alternatives in two medical applications: prediction of metabolic traits and prediction of sensitivity of cancer cells to different drugs, both using genomic features as predictors. Furthermore, the intelligent approach to collect feedback reduced the workload of the expert to approximately 11%, compared to a baseline approach.Availability and implementationSource code implementing the introduced computational methods is freely available at https://github.com/AaltoPML/knowledge-elicitation-for-precision-medicine.Supplementary informationSupplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
| S-EPMC6022689 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background. Local health services make limited use of economic evaluation to inform decisions to fund new health service interventions. One barrier is the relevance of published intervention effects to the local setting, given these effects can strongly reflect the original evaluation context. Expert elicitation methods provide a structured approach to explicitly and transparently adjust published effect estimates, which can then be used in local-level economic evaluations to increase their local relevance. Expert elicitation was used to adjust published effect estimates for 2 interventions targeting the prevention of inpatient hypoglycemia. Methods. Elicitation was undertaken with 6 clinical experts. They were systematically presented with information regarding potential differences in patient characteristics and quality of care between the published study and local contexts, and regarding the design and application of the published study. The experts then assessed the intervention effects and provided estimates of the most realistic, most pessimistic, and most optimistic intervention effect sizes in the local context. Results. The experts estimated both interventions would be less effective in the local setting compared with the published effect estimates. For one intervention, the experts expected the lower complexity of admitted patients in the local setting would reduce the intervention's effectiveness. For the other intervention, the reduced effect was largely driven by differences in the scope of implementation (hospital-wide in the local setting compared with targeted implementation in the evaluation). Conclusions. The pragmatic elicitation methods reported in this article provide a feasible and acceptable approach to assess and adjust published intervention effects to better reflect expected effects in the local context. Further development and application of these methods is proposed to facilitate the use of local-level economic evaluation.HighlightsLocal health services make limited use of economic evaluation to inform their decisions on the funding of new health service interventions. One barrier to use is the relevance of published intervention evaluations to the local setting.Expert elicitation methods provide a structured way to consider differences between the evaluation and local settings and to explicitly and transparently adjust published effect estimates for use in local economic evaluations.The pragmatic elicitation methods reported in this article offer a feasible and acceptable approach to adjusting published intervention effects to better reflect the effects expected in the local context. This increases the relevance of economic evaluations for local decision makers.
| S-EPMC10812103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:For many societally important science-based decisions, data are inadequate, unreliable or non-existent, and expert advice is sought. In such cases, procedures for eliciting structured expert judgments (SEJ) are increasingly used. This raises questions regarding validity and reproducibility. This paper presents new findings from a large-scale international SEJ study intended to estimate the global burden of foodborne disease on behalf of WHO. The study involved 72 experts distributed over 134 expert panels, with panels comprising thirteen experts on average. Elicitations were conducted in five languages. Performance-based weighted solutions for target questions of interest were formed for each panel. These weights were based on individual expert's statistical accuracy and informativeness, determined using between ten and fifteen calibration variables from the experts' field with known values. Equal weights combinations were also calculated. The main conclusions on expert performance are: (1) SEJ does provide a science-based method for attribution of the global burden of foodborne diseases; (2) equal weighting of experts per panel increased statistical accuracy to acceptable levels, but at the cost of informativeness; (3) performance-based weighting increased informativeness, while retaining accuracy; (4) due to study constraints individual experts' accuracies were generally lower than in other SEJ studies, and (5) there was a negative correlation between experts' informativeness and statistical accuracy which attenuated as accuracy improved, revealing that the least accurate experts drive the negative correlation. It is shown, however, that performance-based weighting has the ability to yield statistically accurate and informative combinations of experts' judgments, thereby offsetting this contrary influence. The present findings suggest that application of SEJ on a large scale is feasible, and motivate the development of enhanced training and tools for remote elicitation of multiple, internationally-dispersed panels.
| S-EPMC4773223 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study on the microbial community of a bioleaching column test
| PRJEB9810 | ENA