Researching the level of agreement among experts on terms used to describe wounds: An international study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Greco A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10502252 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Researching the level of agreement among experts on terms used to describe wounds: An international study.
Greco Alessandro A Mastronicola Diego D Pacini Francesco F Giacomelli Luca L Papa Simonetta S Fiorentini Chiara C David Valentina V Rowan Sara S Mennini Natascia N Magnoni Cristina C
International wound journal 20230419 8
Establishing a common language that allows univocal and objective communication in describing wounds and their healing is of utmost importance in defining the diagnostic hypothesis and proper wound management. To measure the level of agreement on the description of wounds, an international study was performed among experts of different professional backgrounds on several common terms used to describe ulcerative lesions. A panel of 27 wound care experts anonymously completed a multiple-choice que ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and objectivesThe language used to communicate important aspects of kidney health is inconsistent and may be conceptualized differently by patients and health professionals. These problems may impair the quality of communication, care, and patient outcomes. We aimed to describe the perspectives of patients on terms used to describe kidney health.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsPatients with CKD (n=54) and caregivers (n=13) from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia participated in ten focus groups to discuss terms for kidney health (including kidney, renal, CKD, ESKD, kidney failure, and descriptors for kidney function). We analyzed the data using thematic analysis.ResultsWe identified four themes: provoking and exacerbating undue trauma (fear of the unknown, denoting impending death, despair in having incurable or untreatable disease, premature labeling and assumptions, judgment, stigma, and failure of self); frustrated by ambiguity (confused by medicalized language, lacking personal relevance, baffled by imprecision in meaning, and/or opposed to obsolete terms); making sense of the prognostic enigma (conceptualizing level of kidney function, correlating with symptoms and effect on life, predicting progression, and need for intervention); and mobilizing self-management (confronting reality, enabling planning and preparation, taking ownership for change, learning medical terms for self-advocacy, and educating others).ConclusionsThe obscurity and imprecision of terms in CKD can be unduly distressing and traumatizing for patients, which can impair decision making and self-management. Consistent and meaningful patient-centered terminology may improve patient autonomy, satisfaction, and outcomes.
| S-EPMC7341768 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe scientific term for the substance people inhale and exhale from a vaping device is 'aerosol', but whether the public uses this term is unclear. To inform tobacco control communication efforts, we sought to understand what tobacco users call e-cigarette aerosols.MethodsParticipants were a national convenience sample of 1628 US adults who used e-cigarettes, cigarettes or both (dual users). In an online survey, conducted in spring 2021, participants described what 'people inhale and exhale when they vape', using an open-ended and then a closed-ended response scale. Participants then evaluated warning statements, randomly assigned to contain the term 'aerosol' or 'vapor' (eg, 'E-cigarette aerosol/vapor contains nicotine, which can lead to seizures').ResultsIn open-ended responses, tobacco users most commonly provided the terms 'vapor' (31%) and 'smoke' (23%) but rarely 'aerosol' (<1%). In closed-ended responses, the most commonly endorsed terms were again 'vapor' (57%) and 'smoke' (22%) but again infrequently 'aerosol' (2%). In closed-ended responses, use of the term 'vapor' was more common than other terms among people who were older; white; gay, lesbian or bisexual; college educated; or vape users only (all p<0.05). In the experiment, warnings using the terms 'aerosol' and 'vapor' were equally effective (all p>0.05).ConclusionsThe public rarely uses the term 'aerosol' to describe e-cigarette output, potentially complicating educational efforts that use the term. Future studies should explore public knowledge and understanding of the terms 'aerosol' and the more popular 'vapor' to better inform vaping risk communication.
| S-EPMC9768092 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPatients are unintentionally, yet frequently, harmed in situations that are deemed preventable. Incident reporting systems help prevent harm, yet there is considerable variability in how patient safety incidents are reported. This may lead to inconsistent or unnecessary patterns of incident reporting and failures to identify serious patient safety incidents. This systematic review aims to describe international approaches in relation to defining serious reportable patient safety incidents.MethodsMultiple electronic and gray literature databases were searched for articles published between 2009 and 2019. Empirical studies, reviews, national reports, and policies were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted because of study heterogeneity.ResultsA total of 50 articles were included. There was wide variation in the terminology used to represent serious reportable patient safety incidents. Several countries defined a specific subset of incidents, which are considered sufficiently serious, yet preventable if appropriate safety measures are taken. Terms such as "never events," "serious reportable events," or "always review and report" were used. The following dimensions were identified to define a serious reportable patient safety incident: (1) incidents being largely preventable; (2) having the potential for significant learning; (3) causing serious harm or have the potential to cause serious harm; (4) being identifiable, measurable, and feasible for inclusion in an incident reporting system; and (5) running the risk of recurrence.ConclusionsVariations in terminology and reporting systems between countries might contribute to missed opportunities for learning. International standardized definitions and blame-free reporting systems would enable comparison and international learning to enhance patient safety.
| S-EPMC8612884 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Whole genome sequencing (WGS) and allied variant calling pipelines are a valuable tool for the control and eradication of infectious diseases, since they allow the assessment of the genetic relatedness of strains of animal pathogens. In the context of the control of tuberculosis (TB) in livestock, mainly caused by Mycobacterium bovis, these tools offer a high-resolution alternative to traditional molecular methods in the study of herd breakdown events. However, despite the increased use and efforts in the standardization of WGS methods in human tuberculosis around the world, the application of these WGS-enabled approaches to control TB in livestock is still in early development. Our study pursued an initial evaluation of the performance and agreement of four publicly available pipelines for the analysis of M. bovis WGS data (vSNP, SNiPgenie, BovTB, and MTBseq) on a set of simulated Illumina reads generated from a real-world setting with high TB prevalence in cattle and wildlife in the Republic of Ireland. The overall performance of the evaluated pipelines was high, with recall and precision rates above 99% once repeat-rich and problematic regions were removed from the analyses. In addition, when the same filters were applied, distances between inferred phylogenetic trees were similar and pairwise comparison revealed that most of the differences were due to the positioning of polytomies. Hence, under the studied conditions, all pipelines offer similar performance for variant calling to underpin real-world studies of M. bovis transmission dynamics.
| S-EPMC8712436 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedication review (MR) is the systematic assessment of a patient's medications by a healthcare practitioner. It is necessary to compare such MR interventions to rationalise differences between them and assess their impact. The development of an international taxonomy for terms used to describe activities undertaken within the MR process would facilitate quality of reporting, and the comparison of different interventions.AimTo identify overarching and individual MR activity terms and definitions reported within studies where MR was the main intervention.MethodA systematic review of the literature was performed using search terms for 'Intervention' and 'Outcome'. Papers with empirical data reporting and describing MR activities in English were included. The Mixed Method Appraisal Tool was used to assess research quality. Two researchers reviewed all included literature independently. Data extraction was performed using Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care to report study characteristics, and terms and definitions used to describe MR activities.ResultsTwenty-one papers were included: eight quantitative non-randomised trials (38%), eight randomised controlled trials (38%), and five quantitative descriptive studies (24%). Overarching interventions such as 'Clinical', 'Education' and 'Technical' were identified with no standardised definitions. Terms used to describe the medication review activities, such as stop, start and change, varied with significant potential for ambiguity.ConclusionThe literature reports a variety of overlapping, ambiguous and undefined MR terms. As a result, comparing process evaluations from MR interventions may be difficult. A standardised taxonomy to describe, define and report MR activities is required.
| S-EPMC10147810 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Scabies was added to the WHO Neglected Tropical Diseases portfolio in 2017, and further understanding of the disease burden is now required. There are no uniformly accepted test methods or examination procedures for diagnosis, which limits the interpretation of research and epidemiological findings. The International Alliance for the Control of Scabies (IACS) designated harmonization of diagnostic procedures as a priority for the development of a global control strategy. Therefore, we aimed to develop consensus criteria for the diagnosis of scabies.We conducted an iterative, consensus (Delphi) study involving international experts in the diagnosis of scabies. Panel members were recruited through expression of interest and targeted invitation of experts. The Delphi study consisted of four rounds of anonymous surveys. Rounds 1 and 2 involved generation and ranking an extensive list of possible features. In Rounds 3 and 4, participants were presented results from previous rounds and indicated agreement with a series of draft criteria. Panel participants (n = 34, range per Round 28-30) were predominantly highly experienced clinicians, representing a range of clinical expertise and all inhabited continents. Based on initial rounds, a draft set of criteria were developed, incorporating three levels of diagnostic certainty-Confirmed Scabies, Clinical Scabies and Suspected Scabies. Consensus was reached in Round 4, with a very high level of agreement (> 89%) for all levels of criteria and subcategories. Adoption of the criteria was supported by 96% of panel members.Consensus criteria for scabies diagnosis were established with very high agreement. The 2018 IACS Criteria for the Diagnosis of Scabies can be implemented for scabies research and mapping projects, and for surveillance after control interventions. Validation of the criteria is required.
| S-EPMC5991412 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background and purposeThe diagnosis of transient ischemic attack (TIA) is largely dependent on a process of clinical decision-making that remains poorly characterized in the absence of a validated and accessible biomarker or imaging test. We performed a retrospective chart review to identify variables associated with a final neurologist diagnosis of TIA/stroke.MethodsRecords for all patients seen in The Ottawa Hospital's Stroke Prevention Clinic in 2015 were analyzed for patient and referral characteristics, features of the presenting neurological event, and final diagnosis by a stroke neurologist (classified as definite, possible, or definite not TIA/stroke). Multinomial logistic regression analysis with backward elimination was used to identify variables associated with the final diagnosis.ResultsOur inclusion criteria were met by 1894 patients. After backward elimination, 23 potentially important variables were identified, including monocular vision loss (odds ratio [OR]: 30.4, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.6-63.3), symptoms of sudden onset (OR: 28.3, 95% CI: 14.2-56.2), unilateral weakness affecting 2 or 3 of face, arm, or leg (OR: 17.7, 95% CI: 9.8-31.7), and homonymous hemianopia (OR: 16.6, 95% CI: 8.1-34.0).ConclusionsAccurate diagnosis of TIA is essential to initiating appropriate secondary stroke prevention therapies. A focus on elements of the patient history most commonly associated with a final diagnosis of TIA/stroke may help to identify patients in greatest need of urgent SPC assessment and allow for the provision of effective and efficient stroke prevention services.
| S-EPMC7495706 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies have shown that patients have difficulty understanding medical jargon in electronic health record (EHR) notes, particularly patients with low health literacy. In creating the NoteAid dictionary of medical jargon for patients, a panel of medical experts selected terms they perceived as needing definitions for patients.ObjectiveThis study aims to determine whether experts and laypeople agree on what constitutes medical jargon.MethodsUsing an observational study design, we compared the ability of medical experts and laypeople to identify medical jargon in EHR notes. The laypeople were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants were shown 20 sentences from EHR notes, which contained 325 potential jargon terms as identified by the medical experts. We collected demographic information about the laypeople's age, sex, race or ethnicity, education, native language, and health literacy. Health literacy was measured with the Single Item Literacy Screener. Our evaluation metrics were the proportion of terms rated as jargon, sensitivity, specificity, Fleiss κ for agreement among medical experts and among laypeople, and the Kendall rank correlation statistic between the medical experts and laypeople. We performed subgroup analyses by layperson characteristics. We fit a beta regression model with a logit link to examine the association between layperson characteristics and whether a term was classified as jargon.ResultsThe average proportion of terms identified as jargon by the medical experts was 59% (1150/1950, 95% CI 56.1%-61.8%), and the average proportion of terms identified as jargon by the laypeople overall was 25.6% (22,480/87,750, 95% CI 25%-26.2%). There was good agreement among medical experts (Fleiss κ=0.781, 95% CI 0.753-0.809) and fair agreement among laypeople (Fleiss κ=0.590, 95% CI 0.589-0.591). The beta regression model had a pseudo-R2 of 0.071, indicating that demographic characteristics explained very little of the variability in the proportion of terms identified as jargon by laypeople. Using laypeople's identification of jargon as the gold standard, the medical experts had high sensitivity (91.7%, 95% CI 90.1%-93.3%) and specificity (88.2%, 95% CI 86%-90.5%) in identifying jargon terms.ConclusionsTo ensure coverage of possible jargon terms, the medical experts were loose in selecting terms for inclusion. Fair agreement among laypersons shows that this is needed, as there is a variety of opinions among laypersons about what is considered jargon. We showed that medical experts could accurately identify jargon terms for annotation that would be useful for laypeople.
| S-EPMC11522659 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Camera trapping and solicitation of wildlife images through citizen science have become common tools in ecological research. Such studies collect many wildlife images for which correct species classification is crucial; even low misclassification rates can result in erroneous estimation of the geographic range or habitat use of a species, potentially hindering conservation or management efforts. However, some species are difficult to tell apart, making species classification challenging-but the literature on classification agreement rates among experts remains sparse. Here, we measure agreement among experts in distinguishing between images of two similar congeneric species, bobcats (Lynx rufus) and Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). We asked experts to classify the species in selected images to test whether the season, background habitat, time of day, and the visible features of each animal (e.g., face, legs, tail) affected agreement among experts about the species in each image. Overall, experts had moderate agreement (Fleiss' kappa = 0.64), but experts had varying levels of agreement depending on these image characteristics. Most images (71%) had ≥1 expert classification of "unknown," and many images (39%) had some experts classify the image as "bobcat" while others classified it as "lynx." Further, experts were inconsistent even with themselves, changing their classifications of numerous images when they were asked to reclassify the same images months later. These results suggest that classification of images by a single expert is unreliable for similar-looking species. Most of the images did obtain a clear majority classification from the experts, although we emphasize that even majority classifications may be incorrect. We recommend that researchers using wildlife images consult multiple species experts to increase confidence in their image classifications of similar sympatric species. Still, when the presence of a species with similar sympatrics must be conclusive, physical or genetic evidence should be required.
| S-EPMC6262731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate patterns and opinion from international experts with respect to dry eye disease (DED) diagnosis in clinical practice.MethodsAn online survey was distributed to worldwide DED experts. The use of diagnosis tests was evaluated including: symptoms questionnaires, functional tests, tear stability, tear volume, tear composition, surface damage and inflammation, and eyelid assessment. After the subjective importance of symptoms, tear break up time (TBUT), non-invasive TBUT, Schirmer's test, tear meniscus height, tear osmolarity, tear metalloproteinase 9, blepharitis assessment and non-contact meibography was evaluated according to likert scale.ResultsThe survey was sent to 109 experts, and 77 completed the questionnaire (rate of response = 70.6%). Most of the participants were from North America (27%) and Europe (40%). A majority of respondents (73%) diagnose DED using clinical signs and symptoms, but not fulfilling a specific criteria. Seventy-six participants (98.7%) use symptoms questionnaires. All participants evaluate damage to ocular surface, and fluorescein staining is the most frequent method used (92%). Also, all the respondents perform meibomian gland and blepharitis assessment. On the other hand, only 69.8% evaluate tear composition, being osmolarity the most common test used (66.2%). Regarding to the importance of tests, TBUT (p = 0.002) and Schirmer's (p = 0.021) were found to be more important to experts from Europe than North America. No differences were found in any other test (p > 0.05).ConclusionsThis survey offers updated and day-to-day diagnostic clinical practice by DED worldwide experts. The results highlight the importance of symptoms and clinical signs, but not necessarily following a strict criteria.
| S-EPMC10361019 | biostudies-literature