A reference model based interface terminology for generic observations in Anatomic Pathology Structured Reports

Background

Current terminology systems for structured reporting in pathology are more or less focused on tumor pathology. They have not been compiled in a systematic approach, therefore they gather terms of very different granularity. Generic models for terminology development could help in establishing reference terminologies for all fields of anatomic pathology.The core principle of those models is the ontological structure of native speaking terminology. By analyzing the PathLex interface a generic terminology model will be derived.

Methods

For each element template of PathLex its possible generic nature and its value set was analyzed, looking for the uniqueness or multiplicity of the values in the value sets.The generic terms were mapped to SNOMED-CT terms using "ArtDecor".

Results

The 488 PathLex element templates for Anatomic Pathology (AP) observations can be reduced to 53 generic templates, leaving out only 17 templates very specific for organ and/or disease. Among those 53 templates 28 are describing UICC-TNM staging, ICD-O-classification, and grading. Further 15 templates describe the results from marker investigations. Almost all of the terms, used in those templates could be mapped to SNOMED CT.All of the generic elements have their "organ specific" counterparts by assigning them to one of 20 organs and invasive or noninvasive cancer, respectively. Studying the structure of generic and specific terms it becomes obvious that any AP observation- occurs always in a context- consists of three basic elements (target of observation, property of observation, additional qualifiers, added by value sets for coded data).

Conclusions

If a machine-readable terminology is aimed to preserve all the information of native speaking, then two principal solutions exist:- ystematic consideration of all the aspects mentioned above in each single term- ocusing on the generic elements of terms and combining this with the structure of communication, reflecting the non-obvious elements of the terminology.The fastest way for establishing an interface terminology is the first approach, which lists all of the terms needed for e.g. a checklist in a comprehensive manner (precoordination).However, if the list of terms and problems increases, or new requirements have to be met, considerable difficulties may arise in keeping the terminology consistent and complete.The second, postcoordination approach offers some advantages. It does not have limitations in the organ- or disease specificity, and it keeps the number of terms limited, making them more easily to survey.

     

Time-Qualified Reference Limits (Chronodesms) for 24-Hour Blood Pressure Values: Classical and Bayesian

Background - This paper is a concrete example of the problems raised by the need of constructing the time-qualified reference limits (chronodesms) for blood pressure (BP), in order to clinically estimate the hemodynamic parameter in its intrinsic nychtohemeral variability. Methods - Assuming that the noninvasive ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) is the eligible technique for this need, it must be realized that the BP chronodems may be of two types, depending on the sample being used for their calculation. The first type may be regarded as “ a priori ” because of the fact that they are derived by a sample of normotensive subjects who are unavoidably recruited via “ causal ” sphygmomanometric measurements and reclassified as normotensive by comparing their ABPM to the fixed reference limits (monodesms) given by WHO (monodiagnosis). Therefore, the “ a priori ” BP chonodesms are by principle derived by subjects who could not be correctly classified as normotensive, their ABPM being not tested versus the time-varying physiological limits. The second type may regarded as “ a posteriori ” in virtue of the fact that they may be constructed on a sample which contemplates the previous subjects who result to be true normotensive via the reassessment of their ABPM versus the “ a priori ” BP chronodesms (chronodiagnosis). The “ a posteriori ” chronodesms may be regarded as biometrically reliable, whether the sample for their construction is additionally constituted by those subjects of the local population who have been erroneously monodiagnosed as hypertensive, while they result to be true normotensive via the chronodiagnostic comparison of their ABPM versus the “ a priori ” BP chronodesms. Results - The biometric reliability of the “ a posteriori ” BP chronodems is demonstrated by the fact that their upper limits are statistically significantly less pronounced due to the fact that they are provided by a sample which has been depured by the falsely monodiagnosed normotensives. Conclusions - The “ a posteriori ” BP upper chronodesms are the time-qualified reference limits which should be used in clinical practice for the chronodiagnosis of hypertension.     

Time-Qualified Reference Limits (Chronodesms) for 24-Hour Blood Pressure Values: Classical and Bayesian

Background – This paper is a concrete example of the problems raised by the need of constructing the time-qualified reference limits (chronodesms) for blood pressure (BP), in order to clinically estimate the hemodynamic parameter in its intrinsic nychtohemeral variability. Methods – Assuming that the noninvasive ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) is the eligible technique for this need, it must be realized that the BP chronodems may be of two types, depending on the sample being used for their calculation. The first type may be regarded as “ a priori ” because of the fact that they are derived by a sample of normotensive subjects who are unavoidably recruited via “ causal ” sphygmomanometric measurements and reclassified as normotensive by comparing their ABPM to the fixed reference limits (monodesms) given by WHO (monodiagnosis). Therefore, the “ a priori ” BP chonodesms are by principle derived by subjects who could not be correctly classified as normotensive, their ABPM being not tested versus the time-varying physiological limits. The second type may regarded as “ a posteriori ” in virtue of the fact that they may be constructed on a sample which contemplates the previous subjects who result to be true normotensive via the reassessment of their ABPM versus the “ a priori ” BP chronodesms (chronodiagnosis). The “ a posteriori ” chronodesms may be regarded as biometrically reliable, whether the sample for their construction is additionally constituted by those subjects of the local population who have been erroneously monodiagnosed as hypertensive, while they result to be true normotensive via the chronodiagnostic comparison of their ABPM versus the “ a priori ” BP chronodesms. Results – The biometric reliability of the “ a posteriori ” BP chronodems is demonstrated by the fact that their upper limits are statistically significantly less pronounced due to the fact that they are provided by a sample which has been depured by the falsely monodiagnosed normotensives. Conclusions – The “ a posteriori ” BP upper chronodesms are the time-qualified reference limits which should be used in clinical practice for the chronodiagnosis of hypertension.     

Recommendations on treatment for IPF

Patient management in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) is largely based on societal guidelines and recommendations. A recent update by the American Thoracic Society (ATS), European Respiratory Society (ERS), Japanese Respiratory Society (JRS) and Latin American Thoracic Association (ALAT) provided updated guidance on the diagnosis and management of IPF, along with recommendations on pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic approaches to patient management. The treatment guidance is based on GRADE criteria, which rates the quality of evidence according to previously published methodology. Here we discuss how to interpret the recent guideline updates and the implications of this guidance for clinical practice. In addition we discuss the assessment and recommendations for a number of pharmacological agents that have been the focus of clinical trials over the past years. Although no single pharmacological agent was recommended by the guidelines committee, we discuss how since then, more recent data have resulted in the approval of pirfenidone in Europe, and preliminary negative findings regarding the safety of a triple therapy regimen consisting of prednisone, azathioprine and N-acetylcysteine have raised the question of whether it is no longer a treatment option. As clinicians, we must interpret the available guidance and recommendations as we consider each individual patient and as we discuss the available clinical data and the patient’s own preferences in our approach to the management of this disease.     

Application of the Stockholm Hierarchy to Defining the Quality of Reference Intervals and Clinical Decision Limits

The Stockholm Hierarchy is a professional consensus created to define the preferred approaches to defining analytical quality. The quality of a laboratory measurement can also be classified by the quality of the limits that the value is compared with, namely reference interval limits and clinical decision limits. At the highest level in the hierarchy would be placed clinical decision limits based on clinical outcome studies. The second level would include both formal reference interval studies (studies of intra and inter-individual variations) and clinical decision limits based on clinician survey. While these approaches are commonly used, they require a lot of resources to define accurately. Placing laboratory experts on the third level would suggest that although they can also define reference intervals by consensus, theirs aren’t as well regarded as clinician defined limits which drive clinical behaviour. Ideally both analytical and clinical considerations should be made, with clinicians and laboratorians both having important information to consider. The fourth level of reference intervals would be for those defined by survey or by regulatory authorities because of the focus on what is commonly achieved rather than what is necessarily correct. Finally, laboratorians know that adopting reference limits from kit inserts or textbook publications is problematic because both methodological issues and reference populations are often not the same as their own. This approach would rank fifth and last. When considering which so called ‘common’ or ‘harmonised reference intervals’ to adopt, both these characteristics and the quality of individual studies need to be assessed. Finally, we should also be aware that reference intervals describe health and physiology while clinical decision limits focus on disease and pathology, and unless we understand and consider the two corresponding issues of test specificity and test sensitivity, we cannot assure the quality of the limits that we report.     

Submarine Ridges and Elevations of Article 76 in Light of Published Summaries of Recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf

Several of the summaries of recommendations of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf contain recommendations involving the application of the provisions of Article 76 of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea with respect to a class of morphological features that can best be described as seafloor highs. The application of these provisions requires the classification of such features into one of the three categories of seafloor highs: oceanic ridges of the deep ocean floor, submarine ridges, and submarine elevations that are natural components of the continental margin. The summaries of the CLCS recommendations provide guidance on the approach that has been adopted for the application of these provisions. Furthermore, the summaries give insight into the principles by which the CLCS is guided in considering the submerged prolongation of the landmass of a coastal state and the delineation of the outer limits of its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, and the importance of determining the foot of the continental slope at its base in this connection.     

Reporting Guidelines for Survey Research: An Analysis of Published Guidance and Reporting Practices

Background

Research needs to be reported transparently so readers can critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the design, conduct, and analysis of studies. Reporting guidelines have been developed to inform reporting for a variety of study designs. The objective of this study was to identify whether there is a need to develop a reporting guideline for survey research.

Methods and Findings

We conducted a three-part project: (1) a systematic review of the literature (including “Instructions to Authors” from the top five journals of 33 medical specialties and top 15 general and internal medicine journals) to identify guidance for reporting survey research; (2) a systematic review of evidence on the quality of reporting of surveys; and (3) a review of reporting of key quality criteria for survey research in 117 recently published reports of self-administered surveys. Fewer than 7% of medical journals (n = 165) provided guidance to authors on survey research despite a majority having published survey-based studies in recent years. We identified four published checklists for conducting or reporting survey research, none of which were validated. We identified eight previous reviews of survey reporting quality, which focused on issues of non-response and accessibility of questionnaires. Our own review of 117 published survey studies revealed that many items were poorly reported: few studies provided the survey or core questions (35%), reported the validity or reliability of the instrument (19%), defined the response rate (25%), discussed the representativeness of the sample (11%), or identified how missing data were handled (11%).

Conclusions

There is limited guidance and no consensus regarding the optimal reporting of survey research. The majority of key reporting criteria are poorly reported in peer-reviewed survey research articles. Our findings highlight the need for clear and consistent reporting guidelines specific to survey research. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

Completeness of Reporting of Patient-Relevant Clinical Trial Outcomes: Comparison of Unpublished Clinical Study Reports with Publicly Available Data

Background

Access to unpublished clinical study reports (CSRs) is currently being discussed as a means to allow unbiased evaluation of clinical research. The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) routinely requests CSRs from manufacturers for its drug assessments.Our objective was to determine the information gain from CSRs compared to publicly available sources (journal publications and registry reports) for patient-relevant outcomes included in IQWiG health technology assessments (HTAs) of drugs.

Methods and Findings

We used a sample of 101 trials with full CSRs received for 16 HTAs of drugs completed by IQWiG between 15 January 2006 and 14 February 2011, and analyzed the CSRs and the publicly available sources of these trials. For each document type we assessed the completeness of information on all patient-relevant outcomes included in the HTAs (benefit outcomes, e.g., mortality, symptoms, and health-related quality of life; harm outcomes, e.g., adverse events). We dichotomized the outcomes as “completely reported” or “incompletely reported.” For each document type, we calculated the proportion of outcomes with complete information per outcome category and overall.We analyzed 101 trials with CSRs; 86 had at least one publicly available source, 65 at least one journal publication, and 50 a registry report. The trials included 1,080 patient-relevant outcomes. The CSRs provided complete information on a considerably higher proportion of outcomes (86%) than the combined publicly available sources (39%). With the exception of health-related quality of life (57%), CSRs provided complete information on 78% to 100% of the various benefit outcomes (combined publicly available sources: 20% to 53%). CSRs also provided considerably more information on harms. The differences in completeness of information for patient-relevant outcomes between CSRs and journal publications or registry reports (or a combination of both) were statistically significant for all types of outcomes.The main limitation of our study is that our sample is not representative because only CSRs provided voluntarily by pharmaceutical companies upon request could be assessed. In addition, the sample covered only a limited number of therapeutic areas and was restricted to randomized controlled trials investigating drugs.

Conclusions

In contrast to CSRs, publicly available sources provide insufficient information on patient-relevant outcomes of clinical trials. CSRs should therefore be made publicly available. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

Recommendations for Improved Assessment of Noise Impacts on Wildlife

ABSTRACT Research to determine noise impacts on animals benefits from methodology that adequately describes the acoustical stimulus as well as the resulting biological responses. We present acoustical considerations and research techniques that we have found to be useful. These include acoustical definitions and noise measurement techniques that conform to standardized acoustical practice and advice for controlled experimentation to supplement behavioral observation. Specific considerations include characteristics of noise stimulus, selection of noise metrics, use of frequency-weighting algorithms tailored to a specific animal species, selection and placement of noise measurement equipment, and methods for documenting animal responses. We also present arguments for measuring the noise stimulus at the location and time of each response observation. Our purpose is to recommend some baseline terminology, metrics, and techniques prerequisite to effective assessment of noise impacts on terrestrial wildlife whenever and wherever potential conflicts arise.