ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2022
Understanding current UK practice for the incidental identification of vertebral fragility fractures from CT scans: an expert elicitation study.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is an emerging interest in using automated approaches to enable the incidental identification of vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs) on existing medical images visualising the spine.
aimTo quantify values, and the degree of uncertainty associated with them, for the incidental identification of VFFs from computed tomography (CT) scans in current practice.
methodsAn expert elicitation exercise was conducted to generate point estimates and measures of uncertainty for four values representing the probability of: VFF being correctly reported by the radiologist; the absence of VFF being correctly assessed by the radiologist; being referred for management when a VFF is identified; having a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan after general practitioner (GP) referral. Data from a sample of seven experts in the diagnosis and management of people with VFFs were pooled using mathematical aggregation.
resultsThe estimated mean values for each probability parameter were: VFF being correctly reported by the radiologist = 0.25 (standard deviation (SD): 0.21); absence of VFF being correctly assessed by the radiologist = 0.89 (0.10); being referred for management when a VFF is identified by the radiologist = 0.15 (0.12); having a DXA scan after GP referral = 0.66 (0.28). DISCUSSION: These estimates could be used to facilitate the subsequent early economic evaluation of potential new approaches to improve the health outcomes of people with VFFs.
conclusionIn the absence of epidemiological studies, this study produced point estimates and measures of uncertainty for key parameters needed to describe current pathways for the incidental diagnosis of VFFs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.