MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Management of Osteonecrosis By Adult and Pediatric Sickle Cell Providers

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

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone and Joint Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaToronto General HospitalMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpecialtyPopulationHemoglobinopathyPediatricsLogistic regressionCross-sectional studyYoung adultFamily medicineDiseaseInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from 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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicBone and Joint DiseasesFrench-language works237,207