An endpoint adjudication committee for the assessment of computed tomography scans in fracture healing

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured Pub Date : 2024-11-26 DOI:10.1016/j.injury.2024.112067
Chloe Elliott , Ethan D. Patterson , Adina Tarcea , Brenna Mattiello , Bevan Frizzell , Richard E.A. Walker , Kevin A. Hildebrand , Neil J. White
{"title":"An endpoint adjudication committee for the assessment of computed tomography scans in fracture healing","authors":"Chloe Elliott ,&nbsp;Ethan D. Patterson ,&nbsp;Adina Tarcea ,&nbsp;Brenna Mattiello ,&nbsp;Bevan Frizzell ,&nbsp;Richard E.A. Walker ,&nbsp;Kevin A. Hildebrand ,&nbsp;Neil J. White","doi":"10.1016/j.injury.2024.112067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Endpoint Adjudication Committees (EACs) benefit the quality of randomized control trials (RCTs) where outcomes depend on subjective interpretations. However, assembling a committee to adjudicate large datasets is cumbersome. In a recent RCT, the primary outcome was time to union following operative fixation of scaphoid non-union, with real or placebo adjunctive ultrasound treatment. Union status was determined with computed tomography (CT) scans interpreted by treating surgeons and radiologists. An EAC was established to deliberate discrepancies between radiologists’ and surgeons’ interpretations of union status.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Three hundred sixty-four CT scans from 142 participants were collected in the RCT. The treating surgeon and an MSK radiologist categorized images by percent-union (0 %, 1–24 %, 25–49 %, 50–74 %, 75–99 %, 100 %). Union was defined as at least 50 % trabecular bridging. The EAC adjudicated those images that were deemed major discrepancies. The committee was composed of three members assembled by the committee chair, an MSK radiologist. A charter was established to guide the adjudication process. Ten minutes were allotted to each scan, including 2–3 min of an independent adjudicator's review, followed by 5–7 min of committee discussion to reach a diagnosis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Adjudicators spent an average of seven minutes on each scan. The EAC assessed 101 CT scans from 69 patients collected across five study sites: four scans from the agreed upon group as practice interpretations, 75 major discrepancies, and 22 missing interpretations from either the initial MSK radiologist, the treating orthopaedic surgeon, or both. These were adjudicated for final union status. Twenty-eight of the images with major discrepancies were adjudicated to union, and 47 to non-union. Adjudication changed the primary outcome of time to union in 40/142 (28 %) of study participants.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This adjudication process provides a valuable research tool for reference by other clinical investigators whose RCTs’ outcomes are dependent on interpretation of radiographic images.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54978,"journal":{"name":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","volume":"56 2","pages":"Article 112067"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Injury-International Journal of the Care of the Injured","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138324008118","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Endpoint Adjudication Committees (EACs) benefit the quality of randomized control trials (RCTs) where outcomes depend on subjective interpretations. However, assembling a committee to adjudicate large datasets is cumbersome. In a recent RCT, the primary outcome was time to union following operative fixation of scaphoid non-union, with real or placebo adjunctive ultrasound treatment. Union status was determined with computed tomography (CT) scans interpreted by treating surgeons and radiologists. An EAC was established to deliberate discrepancies between radiologists’ and surgeons’ interpretations of union status.

Methods

Three hundred sixty-four CT scans from 142 participants were collected in the RCT. The treating surgeon and an MSK radiologist categorized images by percent-union (0 %, 1–24 %, 25–49 %, 50–74 %, 75–99 %, 100 %). Union was defined as at least 50 % trabecular bridging. The EAC adjudicated those images that were deemed major discrepancies. The committee was composed of three members assembled by the committee chair, an MSK radiologist. A charter was established to guide the adjudication process. Ten minutes were allotted to each scan, including 2–3 min of an independent adjudicator's review, followed by 5–7 min of committee discussion to reach a diagnosis.

Results

Adjudicators spent an average of seven minutes on each scan. The EAC assessed 101 CT scans from 69 patients collected across five study sites: four scans from the agreed upon group as practice interpretations, 75 major discrepancies, and 22 missing interpretations from either the initial MSK radiologist, the treating orthopaedic surgeon, or both. These were adjudicated for final union status. Twenty-eight of the images with major discrepancies were adjudicated to union, and 47 to non-union. Adjudication changed the primary outcome of time to union in 40/142 (28 %) of study participants.

Conclusion

This adjudication process provides a valuable research tool for reference by other clinical investigators whose RCTs’ outcomes are dependent on interpretation of radiographic images.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
8.00%
发文量
699
审稿时长
96 days
期刊介绍: Injury was founded in 1969 and is an international journal dealing with all aspects of trauma care and accident surgery. Our primary aim is to facilitate the exchange of ideas, techniques and information among all members of the trauma team.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Gait assessment in patients with intra-articular calcaneal fractures after treatment with the Ilizarov method An endpoint adjudication committee for the assessment of computed tomography scans in fracture healing Isolated posterior stabilization of the pelvic ring in type III/IV fragility fractures of the pelvis are beneficial compared to 360° antero-posterior surgical approaches. A dual-center cohort analysis Does injury type influence patient preference, response rates, and data completeness for online or telephone follow-up following injury?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1