Differentiating placenta accreta spectrum from scar dehiscence with underlying, non‐adherent placenta: A systematic review of scoring systems and primary data analysis

Introduction: Accurate discrimination between placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) and scar dehiscence with underlying non‐adherent placenta is challenging both on prenatal ultrasound and intraoperatively. This can lead to overdiagnosis of PAS and unnecessarily aggressive management of scar dehiscence which increases the risk of morbidity. Several scoring systems have been published which combine clinical and ultrasound information to help diagnose PAS in women at high risk. This research aims to provide insights into the reliability and utility of existing accreta scoring systems in differentiating these two closely related but different conditions to contribute to improved clinical decision making and patient outcomes. Material and Methods: A literature search was performed in four electronic databases. The references of relevant articles were also assessed. The articles were then evaluated according to the predefined inclusion criteria. Primary data for testing each scoring system were obtained retrospectively from two hospitals with specialized PAS services. Each scoring system was used to evaluate the predicted outcome of each case. Results: The literature review yielded 15 articles. Of these, eight did not have a clearly described diagnostic criteria for accreta, hence were excluded. Of the remaining seven studies, one was excluded due to unorthodox diagnostic criteria and two were excluded as they differed from the other systems hindering comparison. Four scoring systems were therefore tested with the primary data. All the scoring systems demonstrated higher scores for high‐grade PAS compared to scar dehiscence (p < 0.001) with an excellent Area Under the receiver operator characteristic Curve ranging from 0.82 (95% CI 0.71–0.92) to 0.87 (95% CI 0.79–0.96) in differentiating between these two conditions. However, no statistically significant differences were noted between the low‐grade PAS and scar dehiscence on all scoring systems. Conclusions: Most published scoring systems have no clearly defined diagnostic criteria. Scoring systems can differentiate between scar dehiscence with underlying non‐adherent placenta from high‐grade PAS with excellent diagnostic accuracy, but not for low‐grade PAS. Hence, relying solely on these scoring systems may lead to errors in estimating the risk or extent of the condition which hinders preoperative planning

Adaptation of the Wound Healing Questionnaire universal-reporter outcome measure for use in global surgery trials (TALON-1 study): mixed-methods study and Rasch analysis

BackgroundThe Bluebelle Wound Healing Questionnaire (WHQ) is a universal-reporter outcome measure developed in the UK for remote detection of surgical-site infection after abdominal surgery. This study aimed to explore cross-cultural equivalence, acceptability, and content validity of the WHQ for use across low- and middle-income countries, and to make recommendations for its adaptation.MethodsThis was a mixed-methods study within a trial (SWAT) embedded in an international randomized trial, conducted according to best practice guidelines, and co-produced with community and patient partners (TALON-1). Structured interviews and focus groups were used to gather data regarding cross-cultural, cross-contextual equivalence of the individual items and scale, and conduct a translatability assessment. Translation was completed into five languages in accordance with Mapi recommendations. Next, data from a prospective cohort (SWAT) were interpreted using Rasch analysis to explore scaling and measurement properties of the WHQ. Finally, qualitative and quantitative data were triangulated using a modified, exploratory, instrumental design model.ResultsIn the qualitative phase, 10 structured interviews and six focus groups took place with a total of 47 investigators across six countries. Themes related to comprehension, response mapping, retrieval, and judgement were identified with rich cross-cultural insights. In the quantitative phase, an exploratory Rasch model was fitted to data from 537 patients (369 excluding extremes). Owing to the number of extreme (floor) values, the overall level of power was low. The single WHQ scale satisfied tests of unidimensionality, indicating validity of the ordinal total WHQ score. There was significant overall model misfit of five items (5, 9, 14, 15, 16) and local dependency in 11 item pairs. The person separation index was estimated as 0.48 suggesting weak discrimination between classes, whereas Cronbach's α was high at 0.86. Triangulation of qualitative data with the Rasch analysis supported recommendations for cross-cultural adaptation of the WHQ items 1 (redness), 3 (clear fluid), 7 (deep wound opening), 10 (pain), 11 (fever), 15 (antibiotics), 16 (debridement), 18 (drainage), and 19 (reoperation). Changes to three item response categories (1, not at all; 2, a little; 3, a lot) were adopted for symptom items 1 to 10, and two categories (0, no; 1, yes) for item 11 (fever).ConclusionThis study made recommendations for cross-cultural adaptation of the WHQ for use in global surgical research and practice, using co-produced mixed-methods data from three continents. Translations are now available for implementation into remote wound assessment pathways