MP65-07 ADHERENCE TO COLLAGENASE CLOSTRIDIUM HISTOLYTICUM LABEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROVIDER SATISFACTION: A SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR SEXUAL MEDICINE MEMBERS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Peyronie’s Disease (MP65)1 Apr 2019MP65-07 ADHERENCE TO COLLAGENASE CLOSTRIDIUM HISTOLYTICUM LABEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROVIDER SATISFACTION: A SURVEY OF INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR SEXUAL MEDICINE MEMBERS Alex Galante*, Thomas Masterson, Mohit Butaney, Alexander Pastuszak, Hossein Sadeghi-Nejad, and Ranjith Ramasamy Alex Galante*Alex Galante* More articles by this author , Thomas MastersonThomas Masterson More articles by this author , Mohit ButaneyMohit Butaney More articles by this author , Alexander PastuszakAlexander Pastuszak More articles by this author , Hossein Sadeghi-NejadHossein Sadeghi-Nejad More articles by this author , and Ranjith RamasamyRanjith Ramasamy More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000556919.80483.5bAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH, Xiaflex) is the only FDA-approved medication for treatment of Peyronie’s disease since 2013. It is unclear how practitioners actually use CCH in their own practices. The objectives of the study were: 1) to identify variability in practice patterns for CCH among practitioners, 2) to assess adherence to the package insert instructions and 3) to evaluate whether provider satisfaction was associated with adherence to instructions. METHODS: A 30-question online survey was distributed to 1,270 members of the International Society for Sexual Medicine (ISSM) from the EU, USA, Canada and Australia. Of the 30 questions, 10 survey questions had only one response consistent with the CCH package insert recommendations. An adherence score was calculated for each survey participant depending on how many of these questions were answered correctly. The average adherence scores of various groups were compared using a t-test. A chi-squared test was used to determine association between categorical variables. RESULTS: Of 202 total responses, 132 practitioners reported using CCH out of 1,270 ISSM members from countries where CCH is available (10.4% response rate). Practitioners from the USA had significantly better adherence scores than those outside the USA (average 7.7 vs 5.9, p<0.001). Practitioners from outside the USA were more likely to be satisfied with CCH (p=0.006), and more experienced users (>20 uses) were more likely to be satisfied than less experienced users (<10 uses) (p=0.046). Satisfied users of CCH did not have significantly different adherence scores than non-satisfied users. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be wide variability in CCH practice patterns among the international urology community. Even though 67% of practitioners believed they followed the package insert guidelines, only 11% adhered to all the recommendations evaluated by the survey. More experienced users and practitioners outside the USA tended to be more satisfied with the product. Treatment adherence to package insert guidelines dose not appear to be associated with provider satisfaction. Source of Funding: none Gainesville, FL; Miami, FL; Salt Lake City, UT; Newark, NJ; Miami, FL© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e952-e952 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Alex Galante* More articles by this author Thomas Masterson More articles by this author Mohit Butaney More articles by this author Alexander Pastuszak More articles by this author Hossein Sadeghi-Nejad More articles by this author Ranjith Ramasamy More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,002 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».