CMS physics technical design report : Addendum on high density QCD with heavy ions

Peer reviewe

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

Validation of Video-based Skill Assessment in Carotid Artery Stenting

AbstractObjectivesTo develop weighted error-based, generic and procedure-specific rating scales, to validate these scales for video-based assessment during virtual carotid artery stent (CAS) procedures and correlate them with simulator-derived metrics.MethodsA questionnaire was developed to assess the technique during live CAS procedures. Errors were rated from 1 (unimportant) to 5 (life-threatening) by 28 highly experienced CAS (>50 CAS) physicians. Virtual CAS procedure was performed by 21 interventionalists with varied CAS experience. Fluoroscopy screen and hand movements were video-taped, and simulator-derived metrics recorded. Experienced CAS practitioners then rated the video-taped performances using weighted error, generic and procedure-specific rating scales.ResultsOf the 23 errors assessed, 12 were regarded as moderate (score 3), six serious (score 4) and four life-threatening (score 5). The generic rating scale was able to detect significant differences in performance between inexperienced and experienced CAS operators (score 25 vs. 32 respectively, P<0.01). All scoring systems demonstrated good inter-rater reliability (α=0.61–0.87). Significant correlations were observed between simulator-derived and video-based scores: weighted error-based score (r: 0.76, P<0.01), generic (r: 0.62, P<0.01) and procedure-specific (r: 0.76, P<0.01) rating scales.ConclusionsThe generic endovascular rating scale differentiated between levels of CAS experience among skilled interventionalists and correlated to simulator-based error scoring