MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2465907423 · doi:10.1182/blood.v126.23.4465.4465

Management of Osteonecrosis By Adult and Pediatric Sickle Cell Providers

2015· article· en· W2465907423 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Dalal Hamza Mulla-Ali, Kevin H.M. Kuo, Amanda M. Brandow, Nancy M. Heddle, George Tomlinson, Aisha Bruce

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBone and Joint Diseases
Établissements canadiensUniversity of AlbertaToronto General HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineSpecialtyPopulationHemoglobinopathyPediatricsLogistic regressionCross-sectional studyYoung adultFamily medicineDiseaseInternal medicinePathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Osteonecrosis (ON) is a debilitating complication in 40% of adult sickle cell disease (SCD) patients. Almost all SCD ON will collapse, develop intractable pain or require surgery in 8 to 15 years from diagnosis. Majority of treatments have not been examined in a controlled setting, leading to variations in care, impeding research to verify the efficacy of existing therapies, and development of new treatments. The study's objective is to describe the screening, diagnostic and management patterns of ON in pediatric and adult SCD patients by US and Canadian providers. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey of SCD providers from the Sickle Cell Adult Provider Network, the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, and the Canadian Hemoglobinopathy Association was conducted from March to July 2015. The survey had 24 questions about provider demographics, characteristics of SCD population, ON diagnosis, staging and treatment. The survey was distributed electronically over 9 weeks with 2 reminders 3 weeks apart. Descriptive statistics were calculated and logistic regression was used to identify factors (specialty, location, years of practice, number of patients, adult vs. pediatric centers) that were associated with screening, diagnostic, staging and treatment approaches. Results: Of the 2,475 health care providers surveyed, 78 participants responded from 63 centers with 17,232 patients (17-23% of the estimated SCD population in US and Canada). Majority of respondents were located in urban teaching centers (93%). All (100%) respondents self-identified as SCD providers: 44 adult hematology/oncology (heme/onc) specialist; 3 internists; 24 pediatric heme/onc specialist; 5 nurse clinicians; 1 pharmacist; and 1 social worker. The median time in practice was 16 years (min 1, max 40). The estimated number of unique patients under the care of the respondents was 10,697, of which 1,946 (18%) had ON. More than half of the ON patients had joint collapse (n=1,050, 54%), and 72% had joint replacement. Only (13%) of the respondents screened for ON in asymptomatic patients, and screening measures include 50% by x-ray; 38% by physical, 12% by other modalities. All (100%) respondents screened for ON in symptomatic patients: 51% using x-ray and MRI, 41% x-ray, 7% MRI. The majority of respondents (72%) did not know the ON staging methods used. Frequencies of respondents using non-surgical and surgical treatments in pre-collapse and collapsed ON are shown in Table 1. Respondents' years in practice was the only factor significantly associated with the use of screening in asymptomatic SCD patients (OR 2.9/decade in practice, p=0.030). Respondents' years in practice was also associated with a reduced likelihood of hydorxyurea (HU) use in pre-collapse ON (OR 0.44/decade more in practice, p=0.011). Patients with collapsed ON under the care of pediatric heme/onc specialists were more likely to be treated with core decompression than adult heme/onc specialist or internist (OR 10.7, p=0.016). Discussion: Our survey suggests that the diagnosis, classification and management of ON is highly heterogeneous, despite the 2014 NIH expert panel report on the management of SCD prior to the distribution of the survey. The lower prevalence of ON in our study compared to that in cohort-wide screening may be due to the lack of screening by surveyed providers in asymptomatic SCD patients, suggesting ON may be underdiagnosed. Despite lack of evidence for their efficacy, HU and core decompression were used by majority of respondents in pre-collapse ON. A limitation of the study is difficulty in estimating the true response rate since the number of SCD providers in US and Canada is not known, potentially impacting the results' generalizability. The variations in practice and the high prevalence of collapsed joints requiring replacement in the surveyed population confirms the need to develop a uniformed approach in screening, diagnosis, and evidence-based therapies in SCD ON. Table 1. Non-surgical and surgical treatments used by respondents in pre-collapse and collapsed ON. Some respondents selected multiple responses Treatments Number of Respondents (%) Non-surgical Pre-collapse (n=54) Collapsed (n=53) Analgesia 53 (98%) 52 (98%) Physiotherapy 49 (91%) 37 (70%) Hydroxyurea 32 (59%) 28 (53%) Surgical Pre-collapse (n=38) Collapsed (n=45) Core decompression 33 (87%) 10 (22%) Hip replacement 9 (24%) 43 (95%) Disclosures Off Label Use: Hydroxyurea for treatment of osteonecrosis in sickle cell disease. Kuo:Novartis Canada: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Other: Advisory Board.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,339
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,222

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,218
Écart entre enseignants0,209 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetBone and Joint DiseasesTravaux en français237 207