Search

Objective: In the Netherlands, antenatal cardiotocography (aCTG) to assess fetal well-being is performed in obstetrician-led care. An innovative initiative was started to evaluate whether aCTG for specific indications—reduced fetal movements, external cephalic version, or postdate pregnancy—is feasible in non-obstetrician-led care settings by independent primary care midwives. Quality assessment is essential when reorganizing and shifting tasks and responsibilities. Therefore, we aimed to assess the inter- and intraobserver agreement for aCTG assessments between and within four professional groups involved in Dutch maternity care regarding the overall classification and assessment of the various components of aCTG. Method: This was a prospective study among 47 Dutch primary care midwives, hospital-based midwives, residents, and obstetricians. Ten aCTG traces were assessed twice at a 1 month interval. To ensure a representative sample, we used two different sets of 10 aCTG traces each. We calculated the degree of agreement using the proportions of agreement. Results: The proportions of agreement for interobserver agreement on the classification of aCTG between and within the four professional groups varied from 0.82 to 0.94. The proportions of agreement for each professional group were slightly higher for intraobserver (0.86–0.94) than for interobserver agreement. For the various aCTG components, the proportions of agreement for interobserver agreement varied from 0.64 (presence of contractions) to 0.98 (baseline heart frequency). Conclusion: The proportion of agreement levels between and within the maternity care professionals in the classification of aCTG traces among healthy women were comparable. This means that these professional groups are equally well able to classify aCTGs in healthy pregnant women.

Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) may improve response prediction in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a CNN using maximum intensity projection (MIP) images from 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET) baseline scans to predict the probability of time-to-progression (TTP) within 2 years and compare it with the International Prognostic Index (IPI), i.e. a clinically used score. 296 DLBCL 18F-FDG PET/CT baseline scans collected from a prospective clinical trial (HOVON-84) were analysed. Cross-validation was performed using coronal and sagittal MIPs. An external dataset (340 DLBCL patients) was used to validate the model. Association between the probabilities, metabolic tumour volume and Dmaxbulk was assessed. Probabilities for PET scans with synthetically removed tumors were also assessed. The CNN provided a 2-year TTP prediction with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.74, outperforming the IPI-based model (AUC = 0.68). Furthermore, high probabilities (> 0.6) of the original MIPs were considerably decreased after removing the tumours (< 0.4, generally). These findings suggest that MIP-based CNNs are able to predict treatment outcome in DLBCL.

We investigated whether the outcome prediction of patients with aggressive B-cell lymphoma can be improved by combining clinical, molecular genotype, and radiomics features. MYC, BCL2, and BCL6 rearrangements were assessed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. Seventeen radiomics features were extracted from the baseline positron emission tomography–computed tomography of 323 patients, which included maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax), SUVpeak, SUVmean, metabolic tumor volume (MTV), total lesion glycolysis, and 12 dissemination features pertaining to distance, differences in uptake and volume between lesions, respectively. Logistic regression with backward feature selection was used to predict progression after 2 years. The predictive value of (1) International Prognostic Index (IPI); (2) IPI plus MYC; (3) IPI, MYC, and MTV; (4) radiomics; and (5) MYC plus radiomics models were tested using the cross-validated area under the curve (CV-AUC) and positive predictive values (PPVs). IPI yielded a CV-AUC of 0.65 ± 0.07 with a PPV of 29.6%. The IPI plus MYC model yielded a CV-AUC of 0.68 ± 0.08. IPI, MYC, and MTV yielded a CV-AUC of 0.74 ± 0.08. The highest model performance of the radiomics model was observed for MTV combined with the maximum distance between the largest lesion and another lesion, the maximum difference in SUVpeak between 2 lesions, and the sum of distances between all lesions, yielding an improved CV-AUC of 0.77 ± 0.07. The same radiomics features were retained when adding MYC (CV-AUC, 0.77 ± 0.07). PPV was highest for the MYC plus radiomics model (50.0%) and increased by 20% compared with the IPI (29.6%). Adding radiomics features improved model performance and PPV and can, therefore, aid in identifying poor prognosis patients.

Purpose: Accurate prognostic markers are urgently needed to identify diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients at high risk of progression or relapse. Our purpose was to investigate the potential added value of baseline radiomics features to the international prognostic index (IPI) in predicting outcome after first-line treatment. Methods: Three hundred seventeen newly diagnosed DLBCL patients were included. Lesions were delineated using a semi-automated segmentation method (standardized uptake value ≥ 4.0), and 490 radiomics features were extracted. We used logistic regression with backward feature selection to predict 2-year time to progression (TTP). The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operator characteristic curve was calculated to assess model performance. High-risk groups were defined based on prevalence of events; diagnostic performance was assessed using positive and negative predictive values. Results: The IPI model yielded an AUC of 0.68. The optimal radiomics model comprised the natural logarithms of metabolic tumor volume (MTV) and of SUVpeak and the maximal distance between the largest lesion and any other lesion (Dmaxbulk, AUC 0.76). Combining radiomics and clinical features showed that a combination of tumor- (MTV, SUVpeak and Dmaxbulk) and patient-related parameters (WHO performance status and age > 60 years) performed best (AUC 0.79). Adding radiomics features to clinical predictors increased PPV with 15%, with more accurate selection of high-risk patients compared to the IPI model (progression at 2-year TTP, 44% vs 28%, respectively). Conclusion: Prediction models using baseline radiomics combined with currently used clinical predictors identify patients at risk of relapse at baseline and significantly improved model performance.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Interference item bank in patients with musculoskeletal complaints. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PROMIS item banks have been developed and validated in the US. They need to be further validated in various patient populations and in different languages. METHODS: One thousand six hundred seventy-seven patients answered the full item bank. A Graded Response Model (GRM) was used to study dimensionality with confirmatory factor analyses and by assessing local independency. Monotonicity was evaluated with Mokken scaling. An Item Response Theory (IRT) model was used to study item fit and to estimate slope and threshold parameters. Differential item functioning (DIF) for language, age, and gender was assessed using ordinal logistic regression analyses. DIF for language was evaluated by comparing our data with a similar US sample. Hypotheses concerning construct validity were tested by correlating item bank-scores with scores on several legacy instruments. RESULTS: The GRM showed suboptimal evidence of unidimensionality in confirmatory factor analysis [Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.903, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): 0.897, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): 0.144], and 99 item pairs with local dependence. A bifactor model showed good fit (CFI: 0.964, TLI: 0.961, RMSEA: 0.089), with a high Omega-H (0.97), a high explained common variance (ECV: 0.81), and no local dependence. Sufficient monotonicity was shown for all items (Mokken H(i): 0.367-0.686). The unidimensional IRT model showed good fit (only two items with S-X < 0.001), with slope parameters ranging from 1.00 to 4.27, and threshold parameters ranging from -1.77 to 3.66. None of the items showed DIF for age or gender. One item showed DIF for language. Correlations with legacy instruments were high (Pearson R: 0.53-0.75), supporting construct validity. CONCLUSION: The high omega-H and the

Background The Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS) for Physical Therapists aims to measure clinicians' biomedical and biopsychosocial treatment orientations regarding nonspecific low back pain. Objective The objective of this study was to assess whether the PABS can differentiate between subgroups of physical therapists hypothesized to differ in treatment orientations. Design This study was a cross-sectional survey. Methods The PABS was completed by 662 Norwegian physical therapists with a diversity of professional backgrounds. Twenty-four a priori hypotheses on expected differences in PABS scores were formulated. Sufficient discriminative ability was defined as a minimum of 75% confirmed hypotheses. Hypotheses on differences in scores were tested for the biomedical and biopsychosocial subscales separately as well as for combinations of the 2 subscales, representing responders with high biomedical and low biopsychosocial PABS scores and vice versa. Results Of the 24 hypotheses, only 15 (62.5%) were confirmed. Between-group differences concerning the separate subscales were small, varying from 0.63 to 1.70 scale points, representing values up to 6.0% of the total subscale ranges. Between-group differences were larger when combined subscales were used, varying from 1.80 to 6.70 points, representing values up to 25.1% of the total subscale ranges. Despite little spread in scores, 24% of respondents demonstrated extreme attitudes. Limitations The lack of convincing scientific evidence from previous research on differences in attitudes and beliefs between physical therapists was a limitation for the formulation of hypotheses. Conclusions Discriminative validity of separate subscales of the PABS was not supported. Combining the 2 subscales into global treatment attitudes enabled better discrimination. Little spread in biomedical and biopsychosocial orientations explains why more than one-third of the hypotheses were not confirmed. Either Norwegian physical therapis

We studied the psychometric properties of the 39-item v1.1 Dutch-Flemish Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Behavior item bank in a sample of 1,602 patients with musculoskeletal complaints. We evaluated the assumptions of the underlying item response theory (IRT) model (unidimensionality and local dependency with confirmatory factor analyses), and monotonicity with scalability coefficients). We studied the IRT model fit of all items and estimated the item parameters of the IRT model. Differential item functioning (DIF) was studied for age and gender, and DIF for language was studied as a measure of cross-cultural validity. Confirmatory factor analyses showed suboptimal fit of a unidimensional model, but a bifactor model showed low risk of bias when a unidimensional model was assumed (Omega H = .92, explained common variance of .70). Fifteen item pairs (2%) were locally dependent. Five items showed poor scalability. All items fitted the IRT model; slope parameters ranged from .60 to 2.00, and threshold parameters from –2.05 to 6.80. One item showed DIF for age, 1 item DIF for gender, and 5 items showed DIF for language, but the impact on total scores was low. Our study shows limitations of the Dutch-Flemish Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Behavior item bank when used in a primary care population with musculoskeletal complaints. Perspective: We studied the psychometric properties of the Dutch-Flemish Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Behavior item bank in a large primary care population of patients with musculoskeletal complaints. It showed that the Pain Behavior item bank has limitations when used in this population.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS Pain Interference item bank in patients with musculoskeletal complaints. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PROMIS item banks have been developed and validated in the US. They need to be further validated in various patient populations and in different languages. METHODS: One thousand six hundred seventy-seven patients answered the full item bank. A Graded Response Model (GRM) was used to study dimensionality with confirmatory factor analyses and by assessing local independency. Monotonicity was evaluated with Mokken scaling. An Item Response Theory (IRT) model was used to study item fit and to estimate slope and threshold parameters. Differential item functioning (DIF) for language, age, and gender was assessed using ordinal logistic regression analyses. DIF for language was evaluated by comparing our data with a similar US sample. Hypotheses concerning construct validity were tested by correlating item bank-scores with scores on several legacy instruments. RESULTS: The GRM showed suboptimal evidence of unidimensionality in confirmatory factor analysis [Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.903, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): 0.897, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): 0.144], and 99 item pairs with local dependence. A bifactor model showed good fit (CFI: 0.964, TLI: 0.961, RMSEA: 0.089), with a high Omega-H (0.97), a high explained common variance (ECV: 0.81), and no local dependence. Sufficient monotonicity was shown for all items (Mokken H(i): 0.367-0.686). The unidimensional IRT model showed good fit (only two items with S-X < 0.001), with slope parameters ranging from 1.00 to 4.27, and threshold parameters ranging from -1.77 to 3.66. None of the items showed DIF for age or gender. One item showed DIF for language. Correlations with legacy instruments were high (Pearson R: 0.53-0.75), supporting construct validity. CONCLUSION: The high omega-H and the

Background The Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (PABS) for Physical Therapists aims to measure clinicians' biomedical and biopsychosocial treatment orientations regarding nonspecific low back pain. Objective The objective of this study was to assess whether the PABS can differentiate between subgroups of physical therapists hypothesized to differ in treatment orientations. Design This study was a cross-sectional survey. Methods The PABS was completed by 662 Norwegian physical therapists with a diversity of professional backgrounds. Twenty-four a priori hypotheses on expected differences in PABS scores were formulated. Sufficient discriminative ability was defined as a minimum of 75% confirmed hypotheses. Hypotheses on differences in scores were tested for the biomedical and biopsychosocial subscales separately as well as for combinations of the 2 subscales, representing responders with high biomedical and low biopsychosocial PABS scores and vice versa. Results Of the 24 hypotheses, only 15 (62.5%) were confirmed. Between-group differences concerning the separate subscales were small, varying from 0.63 to 1.70 scale points, representing values up to 6.0% of the total subscale ranges. Between-group differences were larger when combined subscales were used, varying from 1.80 to 6.70 points, representing values up to 25.1% of the total subscale ranges. Despite little spread in scores, 24% of respondents demonstrated extreme attitudes. Limitations The lack of convincing scientific evidence from previous research on differences in attitudes and beliefs between physical therapists was a limitation for the formulation of hypotheses. Conclusions Discriminative validity of separate subscales of the PABS was not supported. Combining the 2 subscales into global treatment attitudes enabled better discrimination. Little spread in biomedical and biopsychosocial orientations explains why more than one-third of the hypotheses were not confirmed. Either Norwegian physical therapis

Previous studies have suggested there is an association between preoperative expectations about the outcome and outcomes of total knee and total hip arthroplasty (TKA/THA). However, expectations have been rarely examined on their clinical relevance relative to other well-known predictive factors. Furthermore expectations can be measured on a more generic level (e.g. does one expect their symptoms to improve after surgery) or on a more specific level (e.g. does one expect to be able to squat again after surgery). Aim of this study was to examine whether patients' general and specific preoperative outcome expectations predict function and pain 12-months after TKA/THA, when assessed as one of the candidate predictive variables alongside other relevant clinical and sociodemographic variables. Moreover, we explored whether a more generic or a more specific assessment of expectations would better predict outcome. A prospective cohort study on consecutive TKA/THA patients, with assessments done preoperatively and 12-months postoperative. Primary outcomes were the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) and hip injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) activities of daily living (ADL) and pain subscale scores at 12-months. The pain subscales consist of nine-(KOOS) and 10-(HOOS) items and the ADL of 17 items. Patients' preoperative outcome expectations were measured with the credibility expectancy questionnaire (CEQ), which contains three items scored on a 0-9 scale and sum score 0-27 and the Hospital for Special Surgery expectations surveys (HSS expectation surveys) for 17(TKA) or 18(THA) outcomes on 0-4 scale. Other candidate predictors: preoperative pain and function as measured with HOOS/KOOS, sex, age, education level, body mass index, Kellgren/Lawrence score, preoperative mental health and treatment credibility as measured with CEQ. Eight prediction models were constructed using multivariate linear regression analysis with a backward selection proce

Previous studies have suggested there is an association between preoperative expectations about the outcome and outcomes of total knee and total hip arthroplasty (TKA/THA). However, expectations have been rarely examined on their clinical relevance relative to other well-known predictive factors. Furthermore expectations can be measured on a more generic level (e.g. does one expect their symptoms to improve after surgery) or on a more specific level (e.g. does one expect to be able to squat again after surgery). Aim of this study was to examine whether patients' general and specific preoperative outcome expectations predict function and pain 12-months after TKA/THA, when assessed as one of the candidate predictive variables alongside other relevant clinical and sociodemographic variables. Moreover, we explored whether a more generic or a more specific assessment of expectations would better predict outcome. A prospective cohort study on consecutive TKA/THA patients, with assessments done preoperatively and 12-months postoperative. Primary outcomes were the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) and hip injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) activities of daily living (ADL) and pain subscale scores at 12-months. The pain subscales consist of nine-(KOOS) and 10-(HOOS) items and the ADL of 17 items. Patients' preoperative outcome expectations were measured with the credibility expectancy questionnaire (CEQ), which contains three items scored on a 0-9 scale and sum score 0-27 and the Hospital for Special Surgery expectations surveys (HSS expectation surveys) for 17(TKA) or 18(THA) outcomes on 0-4 scale. Other candidate predictors: preoperative pain and function as measured with HOOS/KOOS, sex, age, education level, body mass index, Kellgren/Lawrence score, preoperative mental health and treatment credibility as measured with CEQ. Eight prediction models were constructed using multivariate linear regression analysis with a backward selection proce

Background: Valid tools to assess aesthetic outcomes after breast reconstructive surgery are scarce. Previously a professional aesthetic assessment scale was introduced, the Aesthetic Items Scale (AIS). We aim to determine if this method is a valid and reliable tool to assess aesthetic outcome after breast reconstructive surgery. Methods: The study population was consenting women who underwent prophylactic mastectomy with subsequent implant-based breast reconstruction. The aesthetic outcome with regard to breast volume, shape, symmetry, scars, and nipple areola complex was rated on a 5-point scale using standardized photographs to give a summed total score. Photographs were evaluated by the patient, 5 plastic surgeons, and 3 mammography nurses. An overall rating of aesthetic outcome on a 1-10 scale was given separately. We determined the intraclass correlation coefficient and assessed interobserver agreement. To assess validity, we calculated the correlation between total score and overall rating of aesthetic outcome. Results: Interobserver reliability was highest between plastic surgeons for the subitem and overall scores and ranged between 0.56 and 0.82. The summed score of the AIS correlates strongly with the overall rating in professionals but not in patients. Conclusions: The AIS is a valid and reliable method for evaluating aesthetic outcome of breast reconstruction by plastic surgeons. The results indicate that patients judge aesthetic outcome differently, taking into account factors that are not represented in the AIS. Professionals can use this method to evaluate surgical results, but other measurements are needed to map satisfaction of the patient with her breasts.

The reported relationships between nerve conduction studies (NCS) and outcome measures in carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) are weak to moderate. However, selection of patients may have confounded nonrandomized studies. NCS have potentially great value in selecting patients for a specific treatment and in objectively assessing the efficacy of treatments in CTS, especially if they correlate significantly with clinical outcome measures. To investigate the relationship between clinical outcome measures for the severity of complaints and NCS in patients treated for CTS, data were obtained from a multicenter randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of splinting versus surgery for CTS. At baseline and 12 months after randomization, clinical outcome measures were assessed and NCS were performed. In total, 138 patients completed the questionnaires and underwent repeated NCS. Relationships were analyzed with Spearman rank correlation coefficients and Pearson correlation coefficients. All NCS parameters showed highly significant improvement compared with baseline (P < 0.001). Modest correlations (<0.4) were found between the neurophysiologic and clinical outcome measures after 12 months, and between the changes in these different categories of outcome measures. This study confirms that the parameters of NCS improve significantly after treatment for CTS, but the modest correlations between neurophysiologic and clinical outcome measures do not support that NCS are routinely performed in clinical practice to evaluate treatment effects. However, studies investigating the effects of treatment for CTS should incorporate both clinical outcome measures and NCS, because they are complementary. Furthermore, NCS can provide additional information to the clinician when treatment effects are unsatisfactory.

The reported relationships between nerve conduction studies (NCS) and outcome measures in carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) are weak to moderate. However, selection of patients may have confounded nonrandomized studies. NCS have potentially great value in selecting patients for a specific treatment and in objectively assessing the efficacy of treatments in CTS, especially if they correlate significantly with clinical outcome measures. To investigate the relationship between clinical outcome measures for the severity of complaints and NCS in patients treated for CTS, data were obtained from a multicenter randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of splinting versus surgery for CTS. At baseline and 12 months after randomization, clinical outcome measures were assessed and NCS were performed. In total, 138 patients completed the questionnaires and underwent repeated NCS. Relationships were analyzed with Spearman rank correlation coefficients and Pearson correlation coefficients. All NCS parameters showed highly significant improvement compared with baseline (P < 0.001). Modest correlations (<0.4) were found between the neurophysiologic and clinical outcome measures after 12 months, and between the changes in these different categories of outcome measures. This study confirms that the parameters of NCS improve significantly after treatment for CTS, but the modest correlations between neurophysiologic and clinical outcome measures do not support that NCS are routinely performed in clinical practice to evaluate treatment effects. However, studies investigating the effects of treatment for CTS should incorporate both clinical outcome measures and NCS, because they are complementary. Furthermore, NCS can provide additional information to the clinician when treatment effects are unsatisfactory.