| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Williams, R. D., et al.
(författare)
-
Seek COVER: using a disease proxy to rapidly develop and validate a personalized risk calculator for COVID-19 outcomes in an international network
- 2022
-
Ingår i: BMC Medical Research Methodology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2288. ; 22:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: We investigated whether we could use influenza data to develop prediction models for COVID-19 to increase the speed at which prediction models can reliably be developed and validated early in a pandemic. We developed COVID-19 Estimated Risk (COVER) scores that quantify a patient’s risk of hospital admission with pneumonia (COVER-H), hospitalization with pneumonia requiring intensive services or death (COVER-I), or fatality (COVER-F) in the 30-days following COVID-19 diagnosis using historical data from patients with influenza or flu-like symptoms and tested this in COVID-19 patients. Methods: We analyzed a federated network of electronic medical records and administrative claims data from 14 data sources and 6 countries containing data collected on or before 4/27/2020. We used a 2-step process to develop 3 scores using historical data from patients with influenza or flu-like symptoms any time prior to 2020. The first step was to create a data-driven model using LASSO regularized logistic regression, the covariates of which were used to develop aggregate covariates for the second step where the COVER scores were developed using a smaller set of features. These 3 COVER scores were then externally validated on patients with 1) influenza or flu-like symptoms and 2) confirmed or suspected COVID-19 diagnosis across 5 databases from South Korea, Spain, and the United States. Outcomes included i) hospitalization with pneumonia, ii) hospitalization with pneumonia requiring intensive services or death, and iii) death in the 30 days after index date. Results: Overall, 44,507 COVID-19 patients were included for model validation. We identified 7 predictors (history of cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, kidney disease) which combined with age and sex discriminated which patients would experience any of our three outcomes. The models achieved good performance in influenza and COVID-19 cohorts. For COVID-19 the AUC ranges were, COVER-H: 0.69–0.81, COVER-I: 0.73–0.91, and COVER-F: 0.72–0.90. Calibration varied across the validations with some of the COVID-19 validations being less well calibrated than the influenza validations. Conclusions: This research demonstrated the utility of using a proxy disease to develop a prediction model. The 3 COVER models with 9-predictors that were developed using influenza data perform well for COVID-19 patients for predicting hospitalization, intensive services, and fatality. The scores showed good discriminatory performance which transferred well to the COVID-19 population. There was some miscalibration in the COVID-19 validations, which is potentially due to the difference in symptom severity between the two diseases. A possible solution for this is to recalibrate the models in each location before use. © 2022, The Author(s).
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Reps, J. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Implementation of the COVID-19 Vulnerability Index Across an International Network of Health Care Data Sets: Collaborative External Validation Study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: JMIR Medical Informatics. - : JMIR Publications Inc.. - 2291-9694. ; 9:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: SARS-CoV-2 is straining health care systems globally. The burden on hospitals during the pandemic could be reduced by implementing prediction models that can discriminate patients who require hospitalization from those who do not. The COVID-19 vulnerability (C-19) index, a model that predicts which patients will be admitted to hospital for treatment of pneumonia or pneumonia proxies, has been developed and proposed as a valuable tool for decision-making during the pandemic. However, the model is at high risk of bias according to the "prediction model risk of bias assessment" criteria, and it has not been externally validated. Objective: The aim of this study was to externally validate the C-19 index across a range of health care settings to determine how well it broadly predicts hospitalization due to pneumonia in COVID-19 cases. Methods: We followed the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) framework for external validation to assess the reliability of the C-19 index. We evaluated the model on two different target populations, 41,381 patients who presented with SARS-CoV-2 at an outpatient or emergency department visit and 9,429,285 patients who presented with influenza or related symptoms during an outpatient or emergency department visit, to predict their risk of hospitalization with pneumonia during the following 0-30 days. In total, we validated the model across a network of 14 databases spanning the United States, Europe, Australia, and Asia. Results: The internal validation performance of the C-19 index had a C statistic of 0.73, and the calibration was not reported by the authors. When we externally validated it by transporting it to SARS-CoV-2 data, the model obtained C statistics of 0.36, 0.53 (0.473-0.584) and 0.56 (0.488-0.636) on Spanish, US, and South Korean data sets, respectively. The calibration was poor, with the model underestimating risk. When validated on 12 data sets containing influenza patients across the OHDSI network, the C statistics ranged between 0.40 and 0.68. Conclusions: Our results show that the discriminative performance of the C-19 index model is low for influenza cohorts and even worse among patients with COVID-19 in the United States, Spain, and South Korea. These results suggest that C-19 should not be used to aid decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our findings highlight the importance of performing external validation across a range of settings, especially when a prediction model is being extrapolated to a different population. In the field of prediction, extensive validation is required to create appropriate trust in a model.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
- Gravesteijn, B. Y., et al.
(författare)
-
Variation in the practice of tracheal intubation in Europe after traumatic brain injury : a prospective cohort study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Anaesthesia. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0003-2409 .- 1365-2044. ; 75:1, s. 45-53
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Traumatic brain injury patients frequently undergo tracheal intubation. We aimed to assess current intubation practice in Europe and identify variation in practice. We analysed data from patients with traumatic brain injury included in the prospective cohort study collaborative European neurotrauma effectiveness research in traumatic brain injury (CENTER-TBI) in 45 centres in 16 European countries. We included patients who were transported to hospital by emergency medical services. We used mixed-effects multinomial regression to quantify the effects on pre-hospital or in-hospital tracheal intubation of the following: patient characteristics; injury characteristics; centre; and trauma system characteristics. A total of 3843 patients were included. Of these, 1322 (34%) had their tracheas intubated; 839 (22%) pre-hospital and 483 (13%) in-hospital. The fit of the model with only patient characteristics predicting intubation was good (Nagelkerke R2 64%). The probability of tracheal intubation increased with the following: younger age; lower pre-hospital or emergency department GCS; higher abbreviated injury scale scores (head and neck, thorax and chest, face or abdomen abbreviated injury score); and one or more unreactive pupils. The adjusted median odds ratio for intubation between two randomly chosen centres was 3.1 (95%CI 2.1-4.3) for pre-hospital intubation, and 2.7 (95%CI 1.9-3.5) for in-hospital intubation. Furthermore, the presence of an anaesthetist was independently associated with more pre-hospital intubation (OR 2.9, 95%CI 1.3-6.6), in contrast to the presence of ambulance personnel who are allowed to intubate (OR 0.5, 95%CI 0.3-0.8). In conclusion, patient and injury characteristics are key drivers of tracheal intubation. Between-centre differences were also substantial. Further studies are needed to improve the evidence base supporting recommendations for tracheal intubation.
|
|
| 17. |
- Hedegaard, Jakob, et al.
(författare)
-
Comprehensive Transcriptional Analysis of Early-Stage Urothelial Carcinoma
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Cancer Cell. - : Elsevier BV. - 1535-6108 .- 1878-3686. ; 30:1, s. 27-42
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) is a heterogeneous disease with widely different outcomes. We performed a comprehensive transcriptional analysis of 460 early-stage urothelial carcinomas and showed that NMIBC can be subgrouped into three major classes with basal-and luminal-like characteristics and different clinical outcomes. Large differences in biological processes such as the cell cycle, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, and differentiation were observed. Analysis of transcript variants revealed frequent mutations in genes encoding proteins involved in chromatin organization and cytoskeletal functions. Furthermore, mutations in well-known cancer driver genes (e.g., TP53 and ERBB2) were primarily found in high-risk tumors, together with APOBEC-related mutational signatures. The identification of subclasses in NMIBC may offer better prognostication and treatment selection based on subclass assignment.
|
|
| 18. |
- Huijben, Jilske A., et al.
(författare)
-
Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care for patients with traumatic brain injury
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Critical Care. - : BioMed Central. - 1364-8535 .- 1466-609X. ; 23
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: We aimed to develop a set of quality indicators for patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in intensive care units (ICUs) across Europe and to explore barriers and facilitators for implementation of these quality indicators.Methods: A preliminary list of 66 quality indicators was developed, based on current guidelines, existing practice variation, and clinical expertise in TBI management at the ICU. Eight TBI experts of the Advisory Committee preselected the quality indicators during a first Delphi round. A larger Europe-wide expert panel was recruited for the next two Delphi rounds. Quality indicator definitions were evaluated on four criteria: validity (better performance on the indicator reflects better processes of care and leads to better patient outcome), feasibility (data are available or easy to obtain), discriminability (variability in clinical practice), and actionability (professionals can act based on the indicator). Experts scored indicators on a 5-point Likert scale delivered by an electronic survey tool.Results. The expert panel consisted of 50 experts from 18 countries across Europe, mostly intensivists (N=24, 48%) and neurosurgeons (N=7, 14%). Experts agreed on a final set of 42 indicators to assess quality of ICU care: 17 structure indicators, 16 process indicators, and 9 outcome indicators. Experts are motivated to implement this finally proposed set (N=49, 98%) and indicated routine measurement in registries (N=41, 82%), benchmarking (N=42, 84%), and quality improvement programs (N=41, 82%) as future steps. Administrative burden was indicated as the most important barrier for implementation of the indicator set (N=48, 98%).Conclusions: This Delphi consensus study gives insight in which quality indicators have the potential to improve quality of TBI care at European ICUs. The proposed quality indicator set is recommended to be used across Europe for registry purposes to gain insight in current ICU practices and outcomes of patients with TBI. This indicator set may become an important tool to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for patients with TBI in the future.
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
| 21. |
- Sooriakumaran, P, et al.
(författare)
-
Reply to Gianluca Giannarini, Nazareno Suardi and Alberto Briganti's letter to the editor re: Prasanna Sooriakumaran, Abhishek Srivastava, Shahrokh F. Shariat, et al. A multinational, multi-institutional study comparing positive surgical margin rates among 22 393 open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy patients. Eur Urol. In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2013.11.018
- 2014
-
Ingår i: European urology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-7560 .- 0302-2838. ; 65:6, s. E91-E92
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 22. |
|
|
| 23. |
- Wegwarth, O, et al.
(författare)
-
What do European women know about their female cancer risks and cancer screening? A cross-sectional online intervention survey in five European countries
- 2018
-
Ingår i: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 8:12, s. e023789-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Informed decisions about cancer screening require accurate knowledge regarding cancer risks and screening. This study investigates: (1) European women’s knowledge of their risk of developing breast, ovarian, cervical or endometrial cancer, (2) their knowledge about mammography screening and (3) whether an evidence-based leaflet improves their knowledge.DesignCross-sectional online intervention survey.SettingNational samples from five European countries (Czech Republic, Germany, UK, Italy and Sweden)—drawn from the Harris Interactive and the Toluna panel, respectively, in January 2017—were queried on their knowledge of age-specific risks of developing breast, cervical, ovarian or endometrial cancer within the next 10 years and of mammography screening before and after intervention.ParticipantsOf 3629 women (inclusion criteria: age 40–75 years) invited, 2092 responded and 1675 completed the survey (response rate: 61.4%).InterventionEvidence-based leaflet summarising information on age-adjusted female cancer risks, mammography and aspects of cancer prevention.Primary outcome measuresProportion of women (1) accurately estimating their risk of four female cancers, (2) holding correct assumptions of mammography screening and (3) changing their estimations and assumptions after exposure to leaflet.FindingsAcross countries, 59.2% (95% CI 56.8% to 61.6%) to 91.8% (95% CI 90.3% to 93.0%) overestimated their female cancer risks 7–33 fold (mediansacross tumours: 50.0 to 200.0). 26.5% (95% CI 24.4% to 28.7%) were aware that mammography screening has both benefits and harms. Women who accurately estimated their breast cancer risk were less likely to believe that mammography prevents cancer (p<0.001). After leaflet intervention, knowledge of cancer risks improved by 27.0 (95% CI 24.9 to 29.2) to 37.1 (95% CI 34.8 to 39.4) percentage points and of mammography by 23.0 (95% CI 21.0 to 25.1) percentage points.ConclusionA considerable number of women in five European countries may not possess the prerequisites for an informed choice on cancer screening. Evidence-based information in patient leaflets can improve this situation.
|
|
| 24. |
|
|
