ArticleEndocrine connections2024
Reducing noise in radioactive iodine activity selection: the utility of an online clinical calculator.
Article in Endocrine connections, 2024. 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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Noise, an unwanted variability in judgment, is ubiquitous in medicine, including in the prescription of radioactive iodine (RAI). Building upon our recently developed predictive risk model, we created an online clinical support tool to facilitate the translation of our model into clinical practice. The aim of this study is to assess the utility of an online clinical support tool to reduce noise in the treatment for patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC). Methods: The tool was accessible via weblink or a QR code. Activity recommendations were applied to the calculator's four risk categories: 0 GBq for very low risk, 1 GBq for low risk, 4 GBq for intermediate risk, and 6 GBq for high risk. The tool was applied prospectively to 103 patients who received RAI at Royal North Shore Hospital between 2021 and 2022 and retrospectively to 393 patients treated with RAI between 2017 and 2021. Results: A significant difference was observed in administered activity between the 2021-2022 and 2017-2021 cohorts in patients stratified as intermediate risk (median activity 3.95 GBq, interquartile range 2.03-4.04 vs 4 GBq, 4-4) and high risk (4.07 GBq, 3.95-5.7 vs 6 GBq, 6-6) with P-values of 0.01 and <0.01, respectively. No difference was seen in low-risk patients (2.01 GBq, 1.03-3.98 vs 1 GBq, 1-4, P = 0.30). Additionally, no clinically significant recurrence was observed between the two cohorts (6.6% vs 4.5%; P = 0.628). Conclusion: Optimal risk classification and activity recommendation continue to be established. Our data suggest that providing risk stratification and activity recommendation in an easy-to-access online tool can reduce noise and variability in activity prescription for patients with DTC.
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.