PD04-06 EXPERT CONSENSUS ON PEDIATRIC URODYNAMICS REPORTING USING MODIFIED DELPHI TECHNIQUE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyPediatrics I (PD04)1 May 2024PD04-06 EXPERT CONSENSUS ON PEDIATRIC URODYNAMICS REPORTING USING MODIFIED DELPHI TECHNIQUE Kristen M. Meier, Claudia Mata, Jill L. Kaar, Adam J. Rensing, Anne G. Dudley, Alonso Carrasco, Beth A. Drzewiecki, Brian A. VanderBrink, Courtney S. Streur, Darius J. Bagli, David J. Chalmers, Duncan T. Wilcox, Elizabeth B. Yerkes, Glen A. Lau, Gino J. Vricella, Sarah L. Hecht, Hillary L. Copp, Hans G. Pohl, Israel Franco, Jennifer Ahn, John S. Wiener, Jennifer S. Singer, Christopher J. Long, Melise A. Keays, Michael R. Daugherty, Molly E. Fuchs, Paul F. Austin, Charlotte Q. Wu, Rebecca S. Zee, Rosalia Misseri, Stacy T. Tanaka, Stuart B. Bauer, and Kyle O. Rove Kristen M. MeierKristen M. Meier , Claudia MataClaudia Mata , Jill L. KaarJill L. Kaar , Adam J. RensingAdam J. Rensing , Anne G. DudleyAnne G. Dudley , Alonso CarrascoAlonso Carrasco , Beth A. DrzewieckiBeth A. Drzewiecki , Brian A. VanderBrinkBrian A. VanderBrink , Courtney S. StreurCourtney S. Streur , Darius J. BagliDarius J. Bagli , David J. ChalmersDavid J. Chalmers , Duncan T. WilcoxDuncan T. Wilcox , Elizabeth B. YerkesElizabeth B. Yerkes , Glen A. LauGlen A. Lau , Gino J. VricellaGino J. Vricella , Sarah L. HechtSarah L. Hecht , Hillary L. CoppHillary L. Copp , Hans G. PohlHans G. Pohl , Israel FrancoIsrael Franco , Jennifer AhnJennifer Ahn , John S. WienerJohn S. Wiener , Jennifer S. SingerJennifer S. Singer , Christopher J. LongChristopher J. Long , Melise A. KeaysMelise A. Keays , Michael R. DaughertyMichael R. Daugherty , Molly E. FuchsMolly E. Fuchs , Paul F. AustinPaul F. Austin , Charlotte Q. WuCharlotte Q. Wu , Rebecca S. ZeeRebecca S. Zee , Rosalia MisseriRosalia Misseri , Stacy T. TanakaStacy T. Tanaka , Stuart B. BauerStuart B. Bauer , and Kyle O. RoveKyle O. Rove View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008812.05762.7f.06AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Urodynamic (UDS) testing is an important tool in the management of congenital and acquired pediatric lower urinary tract conditions. Attempts have been made to standardize UDS nomenclature, but there have been no formal guidelines on what essential elements to include in a pediatric urodynamics written report. We sought expert consensus on ideal elements and structure of a pediatric urodynamics assessment. METHODS: Pediatric urologists who regularly perform UDS were queried using a modified-Delphi process. Participants were carefully selected representing varied geographic, gender, experience, and societal involvement (CDC National Spina Bifida Patient Registry, Spina Bifida Association (SBA), International Children's Continence Society (ICCS), Epic Pediatric Urology Specialty Steering Board) across North America. Participants underwent three rounds of questionnaires focusing on report organization, elements, definitions, and automated electronic health record (EHR) clinical decision support. Professional billing requirements were also considered. Consensus was defined as 80% of participants agreeing either in favor of or against a topic. Elements without consensus were further discussed in subsequent rounds. RESULTS: A diverse sample of 30 providers, representing 27 different institutions across 22 US states and Canada completed the study. Participants reported interpreting an average number of five urodynamics reports per week (1–22). In round one, participants agreed a written report should be divided into the following sections: indications, study conditions, procedure details, filling phase, radiologic findings (if applicable), incontinence and leak point pressures, voiding phase, and summary. Elements within each of these sections consisting of numerical, categorical, or free text values were discussed and agreed upon. In round two, elements which did not reach consensus were presented, automated decision support was agreed upon, and a preliminary sample report was approved. In round three, which consisted of a virtual live discussion, six additional elements were agreed upon. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus report details the key elements and structure that have been agreed upon by an expert panel of pediatric urologists. Further standardization of documentation should aid collaboration and research for patients undergoing UDS. The Epic Pediatric Urology Specialty Steering Board plans to develop a standardized template based on this work that will be available for all pediatric urologists and will be adaptable for non-Epic EHR users as well. Source of Funding: NA © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e84 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Kristen M. Meier More articles by this author Claudia Mata More articles by this author Jill L. Kaar More articles by this author Adam J. Rensing More articles by this author Anne G. Dudley More articles by this author Alonso Carrasco More articles by this author Beth A. Drzewiecki More articles by this author Brian A. VanderBrink More articles by this author Courtney S. Streur More articles by this author Darius J. Bagli More articles by this author David J. Chalmers More articles by this author Duncan T. Wilcox More articles by this author Elizabeth B. Yerkes More articles by this author Glen A. Lau More articles by this author Gino J. Vricella More articles by this author Sarah L. Hecht More articles by this author Hillary L. Copp More articles by this author Hans G. Pohl More articles by this author Israel Franco More articles by this author Jennifer Ahn More articles by this author John S. Wiener More articles by this author Jennifer S. Singer More articles by this author Christopher J. Long More articles by this author Melise A. Keays More articles by this author Michael R. Daugherty More articles by this author Molly E. Fuchs More articles by this author Paul F. Austin More articles by this author Charlotte Q. Wu More articles by this author Rebecca S. Zee More articles by this author Rosalia Misseri More articles by this author Stacy T. Tanaka More articles by this author Stuart B. Bauer More articles by this author Kyle O. Rove 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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».