Physician and Patient Beliefs and Preferences in Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Vein Thrombosis Testing in People with Cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction It is unclear whether evidence-based diagnostic protocols are followed when cancer patients are tested for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Evidence-based protocols reduce unnecessary diagnostic imaging, offer a patient-centered approach, and have the potential to standardize practice across medical specialties and settings. However, anecdote suggests that specialists who test people with cancer for VTE may prefer diagnostic imaging over clinical probability scoring and D-dimer testing. The aim of this study was to identify physician and patient knowledge, beliefs, values and preferences for VTE testing in cancer. This study was part of a program of research to set International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis standards for VTE testing in people with cancer. Methods This was an international qualitative interview study following COREQ guidelines. Semi-structured interviews with physicians and cancer patients were conducted via Zoom. We used purposive sampling to ensure inclusion of physicians from all specialties who test people with cancer for VTE, practicing across all continents. We invited people treated for cancer who had and did not have experience of VTE testing. We used grounded theory to create a conceptual framework which explains physician and patient values and preferences for VTE testing. Transcripts were coded by three researchers independently, who met to discuss their findings and agree on common codes. Researchers were a Thrombosis physician and two undergraduate students who ensured reflexivity was incorporated into their analysis. Results A total of 32 physicians and 6 cancer patients were invited to interview. Of those invited, 23 physicians and 6 patients across 6 continents completed an interview. Interviews lasted between 21 and 86 minutes. Our derived conceptual model can be seen in the attached Figure. Physicians reported a low threshold to test for VTE in people with cancer compared to those without cancer, because VTE was considered a fatal disease and highly prevalent in this patient population. Imaging was generally the only test used for VTE testing in cancer patients. Many participants relied on their Gestalt estimation of VTE probability when deciding whether to order imaging for pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis. Most thought that low Wells score in combination with a negative D-dimer was not sufficiently sensitive to exclude VTE and anticipated the Wells score and D-dimer to be elevated. The Wells scores had poor face validity because they do not include cancer-specific variables and participants hoped to see a more nuanced formal score for VTE testing in cancer patients. Participants believed that their colleagues would support their diagnostic approach. Patients reported they were used to having tests and CT scans. Patients felt it was important for their physicians to prioritize testing for VTE. Patients had full trust and confidence in their physicians' testing decisions, particularly in decisions made by their oncologists. Conclusion Physicians have a low threshold to test people with cancer for VTE and tend not to use clinical probability assessment and D-dimer. Patients are comfortable having diagnostic imaging, feel VTE testing is important and have full trust in their physicians. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 | 0,005 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 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) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
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 ».