MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S404 Quality Indicator Development for the Approach to Ineffective Esophageal Motility: A Modified Delphi Study

2022· article· en· W4316087211 on OpenAlexaff
A. N. Kamal, Priya Kathpalia, David A. Leiman, Albert J. Bredenoord, John O. Clarke, C. Prakash Gyawali, David A. Katzka, Adriana Lazarescu, John E. Pandolfino, Roberto Penagini, Sabine Roman, Edoardo Savarino, Marcelo F. Vela, Fouad Otaki

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEosinophilic Esophagitis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodDelphiQuality (philosophy)MotilityStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is identified in up to 30% of patients undergoing esophageal high resolution manometry (HRM) based on the Chicago Classification version 4.0. The clinical significance of this pattern is not established and management remains challenging due to a limited framework guiding gastroenterologists when IEM is identified. Aim: To establish quality indicators for approaching IEM when identified on esophageal HRM. Methods: Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Methods, we employed a modified-Delphi approach for quality indicator statement development. Quality indicators were proposed based on prior literature. Experts independently and blindly scored proposed quality statements on importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility in a three-round iterative process. Highly valid quality indicators reached scores with ≥80% agreement in the 7-9 range (on a 9-point Likert scale) across all four categories. Results: There were 10 experts in the management of esophageal diseases invited to participate and all (100%) rated 12 proposed quality indicator statements. In round one, 7 (58.3%) quality indicators were rated with mixed agreement (< 80% agreement across all four categories). Statements were modified based on panel suggestion, modified further following round two’s virtual discussion, and in round three voting identified 2 highly valid quality indicators, 4 moderately valid, and 1 invalid. In total, 2 (16.7%) quality indicators reached high validity. The panel agreed on the concept of determining if IEM is clinically relevant to the patient’s presentation and managing GERD rather than the IEM pattern (Table). The panel disagreed in all four domains on the use of promotility agents (e.g., prucalopride, metoclopramide) in IEM, and had mixed agreement that IEM with contraction reserve on pre-operative HRM can be viewed similar to a manometric pattern without IEM specific to anti-reflux surgery, probably reflecting the lack of solid scientific evidence on this pattern. Conclusion: Using a robust methodology, two IEM quality indicators were identified. These quality indicators can track performance when physicians identify this manometric pattern on HRM with the goal of ultimately improving patient outcomes. This study further highlights the challenges met with IEM, and the need for additional research to better understand the clinical importance of this manometric pattern. Table 1. - Proportion of Expert Agreement on Proposed Quality Indicators: Round #2 Proportion Agreement (%) with high validity Statements Importance Scientific Acceptability Usability Feasibility IF a high resolution esophageal manometry reveals >70% ineffective swallow sequences then the manometric pattern is consistent with IEM 60 60 90 100 IF a high resolution esophageal manometry reveals >= 50% 50 60 90 100 IF a patient’s high resolution esophageal manometry reveals IEM, THEN a member of the care team should assess if the manometric pattern is clinically relevant. 90 80 80 100 IF a patient’s high resolution esophageal manometry reveals IEM, THEN a member of the care team should communicate the clinical relevance of this manometric pattern to the patient. 80 70 60 90 IF a patient has gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and a manometric pattern of IEM, THEN control of GERD is the main approach to patient management. 90 80 90 100 IF a patient with a manometric pattern of IEM and contractile reserve on pre-operative high resolution esophageal manometry is being considered for anti-reflux surgery, THEN surgical management should not differ from a patient without IEM. 40 50 60 60 IF a patient with a manometric pattern of IEM and absent contractile reserve on pre-operative high resolution esophageal manometry is being considered for anti-reflux surgery, THEN the care team should discuss the increased risks of post-operative dysphagia. 70 60 60 80

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.152
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.142
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.805

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1520.142
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicEosinophilic EsophagitisFrench-language works237,207