PD04-06 EXPERT CONSENSUS ON PEDIATRIC URODYNAMICS REPORTING USING MODIFIED DELPHI TECHNIQUE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".