Determinants of frequency and longevity of hospital encounters' data use

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The identification of clinically relevant information enables improvement in user interfaces and in data management. However, it is difficult to identify what information is important in daily clinical care, and what is used occasionally. This study aims to determine for how long clinical documents are used in a Hospital Information System (HIS).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The access logs of 3 years of usage of a HIS were analysed concerning report departmental source, type of hospital encounter, and inpatient encounter ICD-9-CM main diagnosis. Reports median life indicates the median time elapsed between information creation and its usage. The models that better explains report views over time were explored.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The number of report views in the study period was 656 583. Fifty two percent of the reports viewed by medical doctors in emergency encounters were from previous encounters - 21% at outpatient attendance, 19% in inpatient (wards) and 12% during emergency encounters. In an inpatient setting, 20% of the reports viewed were produced in previous encounters. The median life of information in documents is 1.5 days for emergency, 4.8 days for inpatient and 37.8 days for outpatient encounters. Immune-haemotherapy reports reach their median lives faster (7 days) than clinical pathology (15 days), gastroenterology (80 days) and pathology (118 days). The median life of reports produced in inpatient encounters varied from 36 days for neoplasms as the main diagnosis to 0.7 days for injury and poisoning. The model with the best fit (R²> 0.9) was the exponential.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The usage of past patient information varied significantly according to patient age, type of information, type of hospital encounter and medical cause (main diagnosis) for the encounter. The exponential model is a good fit to model how the reports are seen over time, so the design of user interfaces and repository management algorithms should take it in consideration.</p

Revising the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) research priorities: a research progress update

AbstractBackground One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities.Methods As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined).Results The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition.Conclusions Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target

Performance of artificial intelligence for colonoscopy regarding adenoma and polyp detection: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS One fourth of colorectal neoplasia is missed at screening colonoscopy, representing the main cause of interval colorectal cancer (CRC). Deep learning systems with real-time computer-aided polyp detection (CADe) showed high accuracy in artificial settings, and preliminary randomized clinical trials (RCT) reported favourable outcomes in clinical setting. Aim of this meta-analysis was to summarise available RCTs on the performance of CADe systems in colorectal neoplasia detection. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central databases until March 2020 for RCTs reporting diagnostic accuracy of CADe systems in detection of colorectal neoplasia. Primary outcome was pooled adenoma detection rate (ADR), Secondary outcomes were adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) according to size, morphology and location, advanced APC (AAPC), as well as polyp detection rate (PDR), Polyp-per-colonoscopy (PPC), and sessile serrated lesion per colonoscopy (SPC). We calculated risk ratios (RR), performed subgroup, and sensitivity analysis, assessed heterogeneity, and publication bias. RESULTS Overall, 5 randomized controlled trials (4354 patients), were included in the final analysis. Pooled ADR was significantly higher in the CADe groups than in the control group (791/2163, 36.6% vs 558/2191, 25.2%; RR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.27-1.62; p10 mm adenomas (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.04-2.06), as well as for proximal (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.34-1.88) and distal (RR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.50-1.88), and for flat (RR: 1.78 95% CI 1.47-2.15) and polypoid morphology (RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.40-1.68). Regarding histology, CADe resulted in a higher SPC (RR, 1.52; 95% CI,1.14-2.02), whereas a nonsignificant trend for AADR was found (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.74 – 2.47; p = 0.33; I 2:69%). Level of evidence for RCTs was graded moderate. CONCLUSIONS According to available evidence, the incorporation of Artificial Intelligence as aid for detection of colorectal neoplasia results in a significant increase of the detection of colorectal neoplasia, and such effect is independent from main adenoma characteristics

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of patients at risk of gastric adenocarcinoma

Gastric adenocarcinoma carries a poor prognosis, in part due to the late stage of diagnosis. Risk factors include Helicobacter pylori infection, family history of gastric cancer - in particular, hereditary diffuse gastric cancer and pernicious anaemia. The stages in the progression to cancer include chronic gastritis, gastric atrophy (GA), gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) and dysplasia. The key to early detection of cancer and improved survival is to non-invasively identify those at risk before endoscopy. However, although biomarkers may help in the detection of patients with chronic atrophic gastritis, there is insufficient evidence to support their use for population screening. High-quality endoscopy with full mucosal visualisation is an important part of improving early detection. Image-enhanced endoscopy combined with biopsy sampling for histopathology is the best approach to detect and accurately risk-stratify GA and GIM. Biopsies following the Sydney protocol from the antrum, incisura, lesser and greater curvature allow both diagnostic confirmation and risk stratification for progression to cancer. Ideally biopsies should be directed to areas of GA or GIM visualised by high-quality endoscopy. There is insufficient evidence to support screening in a low-risk population (undergoing routine diagnostic oesophagogastroduodenoscopy) such as the UK, but endoscopic surveillance every 3 years should be offered to patients with extensive GA or GIM. Endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection of visible gastric dysplasia and early cancer has been shown to be efficacious with a high success rate and low rate of recurrence, providing that specific quality criteria are met

Efficacy and Tolerability of High- vs Low-Volume Split-Dose Bowel Cleansing Regimens for Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background & Aims Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose. Methods In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I2 statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. Results In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98–1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87–1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02–1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12–1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20–1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate. Conclusions Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance

Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021

BACKGROUND Regular, detailed reporting on population health by underlying cause of death is fundamental for public health decision making. Cause-specific estimates of mortality and the subsequent effects on life expectancy worldwide are valuable metrics to gauge progress in reducing mortality rates. These estimates are particularly important following large-scale mortality spikes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. When systematically analysed, mortality rates and life expectancy allow comparisons of the consequences of causes of death globally and over time, providing a nuanced understanding of the effect of these causes on global populations. METHODS The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2021 cause-of-death analysis estimated mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) from 288 causes of death by age-sex-location-year in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations for each year from 1990 until 2021. The analysis used 56 604 data sources, including data from vital registration and verbal autopsy as well as surveys, censuses, surveillance systems, and cancer registries, among others. As with previous GBD rounds, cause-specific death rates for most causes were estimated using the Cause of Death Ensemble model-a modelling tool developed for GBD to assess the out-of-sample predictive validity of different statistical models and covariate permutations and combine those results to produce cause-specific mortality estimates-with alternative strategies adapted to model causes with insufficient data, substantial changes in reporting over the study period, or unusual epidemiology. YLLs were computed as the product of the number of deaths for each cause-age-sex-location-year and the standard life expectancy at each age. As part of the modelling process, uncertainty intervals (UIs) were generated using the 2·5th and 97·5th percentiles from a 1000-draw distribution for each metric. We decomposed life expectancy by cause of death, location, and year to show cause-specific effects on life expectancy from 1990 to 2021. We also used the coefficient of variation and the fraction of population affected by 90% of deaths to highlight concentrations of mortality. Findings are reported in counts and age-standardised rates. Methodological improvements for cause-of-death estimates in GBD 2021 include the expansion of under-5-years age group to include four new age groups, enhanced methods to account for stochastic variation of sparse data, and the inclusion of COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality-which includes excess mortality associated with the pandemic, excluding COVID-19, lower respiratory infections, measles, malaria, and pertussis. For this analysis, 199 new country-years of vital registration cause-of-death data, 5 country-years of surveillance data, 21 country-years of verbal autopsy data, and 94 country-years of other data types were added to those used in previous GBD rounds. FINDINGS The leading causes of age-standardised deaths globally were the same in 2019 as they were in 1990; in descending order, these were, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lower respiratory infections. In 2021, however, COVID-19 replaced stroke as the second-leading age-standardised cause of death, with 94·0 deaths (95% UI 89·2-100·0) per 100 000 population. The COVID-19 pandemic shifted the rankings of the leading five causes, lowering stroke to the third-leading and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease to the fourth-leading position. In 2021, the highest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 occurred in sub-Saharan Africa (271·0 deaths [250·1-290·7] per 100 000 population) and Latin America and the Caribbean (195·4 deaths [182·1-211·4] per 100 000 population). The lowest age-standardised death rates from COVID-19 were in the high-income super-region (48·1 deaths [47·4-48·8] per 100 000 population) and southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania (23·2 deaths [16·3-37·2] per 100 000 population). Globally, life expectancy steadily improved between 1990 and 2019 for 18 of the 22 investigated causes. Decomposition of global and regional life expectancy showed the positive effect that reductions in deaths from enteric infections, lower respiratory infections, stroke, and neonatal deaths, among others have contributed to improved survival over the study period. However, a net reduction of 1·6 years occurred in global life expectancy between 2019 and 2021, primarily due to increased death rates from COVID-19 and other pandemic-related mortality. Life expectancy was highly variable between super-regions over the study period, with southeast Asia, east Asia, and Oceania gaining 8·3 years (6·7-9·9) overall, while having the smallest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 (0·4 years). The largest reduction in life expectancy due to COVID-19 occurred in Latin America and the Caribbean (3·6 years). Additionally, 53 of the 288 causes of death were highly concentrated in locations with less than 50% of the global population as of 2021, and these causes of death became progressively more concentrated since 1990, when only 44 causes showed this pattern. The concentration phenomenon is discussed heuristically with respect to enteric and lower respiratory infections, malaria, HIV/AIDS, neonatal disorders, tuberculosis, and measles. INTERPRETATION Long-standing gains in life expectancy and reductions in many of the leading causes of death have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the adverse effects of which were spread unevenly among populations. Despite the pandemic, there has been continued progress in combatting several notable causes of death, leading to improved global life expectancy over the study period. Each of the seven GBD super-regions showed an overall improvement from 1990 and 2021, obscuring the negative effect in the years of the pandemic. Additionally, our findings regarding regional variation in causes of death driving increases in life expectancy hold clear policy utility. Analyses of shifting mortality trends reveal that several causes, once widespread globally, are now increasingly concentrated geographically. These changes in mortality concentration, alongside further investigation of changing risks, interventions, and relevant policy, present an important opportunity to deepen our understanding of mortality-reduction strategies. Examining patterns in mortality concentration might reveal areas where successful public health interventions have been implemented. Translating these successes to locations where certain causes of death remain entrenched can inform policies that work to improve life expectancy for people everywhere. FUNDING Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation