- Browse by Subject
Browsing by Subject "Calibration"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Guideline Assessment Project II: statistical calibration informed the development of an AGREE II extension for surgical guidelines(Springer, 2021-08) Tsokani, Sofia; Antoniou, Stavros A.; Moustaki, Irini; López-Cano, Manuel; Antoniou, George A.; Flórez, Ivan D.; Silecchia, Gianfranco; Markar, Sheraz; Stefanidis, Dimitrios; Zanninotto, Giovanni; Francis, Nader K.; Hanna, George H.; Morales-Conde, Salvador; Bonjer, Hendrik Jaap; Brouwers, Melissa C.; Mavridis, Dimitrios; Surgery, School of MedicineOBJECTIVE: To inform the development of an AGREE II extension specifically tailored for surgical guidelines. AGREE II was designed to inform the development, reporting, and appraisal of clinical practice guidelines. Previous research has suggested substantial room for improvement of the quality of surgical guidelines. METHODS: A previously published search in MEDLINE for clinical practice guidelines published by surgical scientific organizations with an international scope between 2008 and 2017, resulted in a total of 67 guidelines. The quality of these guidelines was assessed using AGREE II. We performed a series of statistical analyses (reliability, correlation and Factor Analysis, Item Response Theory) with the objective to calibrate AGREE II for use specifically in surgical guidelines. RESULTS: Reliability/correlation/factor analysis and Item Response Theory produced similar results and suggested that a structure of 5 domains, instead of 6 domains of the original instrument, might be more appropriate. Furthermore, exclusion and re-arrangement of items to other domains was found to increase the reliability of AGREE II when applied in surgical guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that statistical calibration of AGREE II might improve the development, reporting, and appraisal of surgical guidelines.Item Periodontal diagnosis and treatment planning – An assessment of the understanding of the new classification system(Wiley, 2022-07-13) Kakar, Arushi; Blanchard, Steven; Shin, Daniel; Maupomé, Gerardo; Eckert, George J.; John, VanchitObjectives: Substantial variations are seen among clinicians in the diagnosis and treatment planning of periodontal diseases. Accurate diagnosis and treatment planning are fundamental requirements for effective outcome-based patient care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the understanding of the American Academy of Periodontology and the European Federation of Periodontology 2017 periodontal disease classifications in diagnoses and treatment plans across four study groups. Methods: The study recruited at least 20 participants in each of the four study groups. These included 1) Periodontal faculty and residents at Indiana University School of Dentistry (IUSD-PF) 2) IUSD general practice faculty (IUSD-GPF), 3) private practice periodontists (PPP), and 4) general practitioners (GP). The participants were provided with 10 HIPPA de-identified case records and a link to a survey. The survey comprised five demographic questions and two questions on diagnosis and treatment plan for each case along with a fixed list of responses. The responses were then compared against gold standards that were determined by a group of three board-certified periodontists. Results: Overall, for diagnostic questions, GP (69%) were correct significantly less often than IUSD-PF (86%, p < 0.001), IUSD-GPF (79%, p = 0.002), and PPP (80%, p = 0.001). No significant differences (p > 0.05) in the overall correct treatment plan responses were found among the four groups (IUSD-PF: 69%, IUSD-GPF: 62%, PPP: 68%, and GP: 60%). The multi-rater kappas for with-in-group agreement on overall diagnosis ranged from 0.36 (GP) to 0.55 (IUSD-PF) and on overall treatment plan ranged from 0.32 (IUSD-GPF) to 0.42 (IUSD-PF). Overall agreement for diagnosis and treatment plans among the four groups was relatively low and none of the groups were statistically different from each other (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Regular participation in calibration sessions may lead to more accurate adoption of the 2017 periodontal classification and thereby help provide consistent diagnosis and treatment.