Use of a structured elicitation exercise to estimate the prevalence of OME in children with cleft palate

Payne, Katherine; Davison, Niall J; Thompson, Alex; O’Brien, Kevin; Bruce, Iain

doi:10.1111/coa.12771

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 8 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, it was believed that judgements from key opinions leaders in the field were captured. Sample sizes of less than 10 experts have commonly been reported in elicitation studies with some studies reporting a sample of five to seven experts [21,48,49]. A sample size of three experts may appear to be prohibitively small.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding current UK practice for the incidental identification of vertebral fragility fractures from CT scans: an expert elicitation study

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There 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. Aim To quantify values, and the degree of uncertainty associated with them, for the incidental identification of VFFs from computed tomography (CT) scans in current practice. Methods An 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. Results The 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. Conclusion In 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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%