Development of a Deep Learning Algorithm for Periapical Disease Detection in Dental Radiographs

Periapical radiolucencies, which can be detected on panoramic radiographs, are one of the most common radiographic findings in dentistry and have a differential diagnosis including infections, granuloma, cysts and tumors. In this study, we seek to investigate the ability with which 24 oral and maxillofacial (OMF) surgeons assess the presence of periapical lucencies on panoramic radiographs, and we compare these findings to the performance of a predictive deep learning algorithm that we have developed using a curated data set of 2902 de-identified panoramic radiographs. The mean diagnostic positive predictive value (PPV) of OMF surgeons based on their assessment of panoramic radiographic images was 0.69(± 0.13), indicating that dentists on average falsely diagnose 31% of cases as radiolucencies. However, the mean diagnostic true positive rate (TPR) was 0.51(± 0.14), indicating that on average 49% of all radiolucencies were missed. We demonstrate that the deep learning algorithm achieves a better performance than 14 of 24 OMF surgeons within the cohort, exhibiting an average precision of 0.60(± 0.04), and an F1 score of 0.58(± 0.04) corresponding to a PPV of 0.67(± 0.05) and TPR of 0.51(± 0.05). The algorithm, trained on limited data and evaluated on clinically validated ground truth, has potential to assist OMF surgeons in detecting periapical lucencies on panoramic radiographs

Major influencing factors on routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: qualitative process evaluation of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial

Abstract Background Shared decision-making (SDM) is highly relevant in oncology but rarely implemented in routine care. In a stepped-wedge cluster randomized implementation trial, the outcome evaluation of a theoretically and empirically based multi-component SDM implementation program did not show a statistically significant effect on patient-reported SDM uptake. Within this SDM implementation trial, a thorough a priori planned process evaluation was conducted. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate factors influencing SDM implementation in the context of a multi-component SDM implementation program. Methods We conducted qualitative process evaluation of a stepped-wedge SDM implementation trial. Qualitative data included interviews with nurses and physicians of participating departments, field notes by the study team, and meeting minutes. Data were analyzed via deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis on basis of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Results Transcripts of 107 interviews with 126 nurses and physicians, 304 pages of field note documentation, and 125 pages of meeting minutes were analyzed. Major factors influencing SDM implementation were found for all domains of the CFIR: a) four regarding characteristics of the individuals involved (e.g., perceived personal relevance, individual motivation to change), b) eleven regarding the inner setting (e.g., leadership engagement, networks and communication, available resources, compatibility with clinical practice), c) two regarding the outer setting (e.g., culture of health care delivery), d) eight regarding characteristics of the intervention (e.g., relative advantage, adaptability), and e) three regarding the implementation process (e.g., integration into existing structures). Furthermore, we found strong interrelations between several of the influencing factors within and between domains. Conclusions This comprehensive process evaluation complements the outcome evaluation of the SDM implementation trial and adds to its interpretation. The identified influencing factors can be used for planning, conducting, and evaluating SDM implementation in the future. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351, registered 8 January 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT0339335

Evaluation of a program for routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: study protocol of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial

Abstract Background Shared decision-making (SDM) has become increasingly important in health care. However, despite scientific evidence, effective implementation strategies, and a prominent position on the health policy agenda, SDM is not widely implemented in routine practice so far. Therefore, we developed a program for routine implementation of SDM in oncology by conducting an analysis of the current state and a needs assessment in a pilot study based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Based on these results, the main aim of our current study is to evaluate the process and outcome of this theoretically and empirically grounded multicomponent implementation program designed to foster SDM in routine cancer care. Methods We use a stepped wedge design, a variant of the cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention to be implemented is SDM. Three participating clinics of one comprehensive cancer center will be randomized and receive the multicomponent SDM implementation program in a time-delayed sequence. The program consists of the following strategies: (a) SDM training for health care professionals, (b) individual coaching for physicians, (c) patient activation strategy, (d) provision of patient information material and decision aids, (e) revision of the clinics’ quality management documents, and (f) critical reflection of current organization of multidisciplinary team meetings. We will conduct a mixed methods outcome and process evaluation. The outcome evaluation will consist of four measurement points. The primary outcome is adoption of SDM, measured by the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. A range of other implementation outcomes will be assessed (i.e., acceptability, readiness for implementing change, appropriateness, penetration). The implementation process will be evaluated using stakeholder interviews and field notes. This will allow adapting interventions if necessary. Discussion This study is the first large study on routine implementation of SDM conducted in German cancer care. We expect to foster implementation of SDM at the enrolled clinics. Insights gained from this study, using a theoretically and empirically grounded approach, can inform other SDM implementation studies and health policy developments, both nationally and internationally. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351. Registered 8 January 2018

Increased Postoperative Bleeding Risk among Patients with Local Flap Surgery under Continued Clopidogrel Therapy

Purpose. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the influence of a continued antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel on postoperative bleeding risk in patients undergoing skin tumor resection and reconstruction with local flaps or skin grafts under outpatient conditions. Patients and Methods. The authors designed and implemented a retrospective clinical cohort study at the General Hospital Balingen. The primary endpoint was the bleeding ratio in patients with clopidogrel treatment in comparison to patients without any anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. Wound healing was evaluated on days 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 14. Results. 650 procedures were performed, 123 of them under continued clopidogrel therapy. There were significantly more postoperative bleeding complications among patients with continued antiplatelet therapy. Regarding the whole study population, malignant lesions, a larger defect size, and skin grafts were accompanied by a higher rate of bleeding incidents. However, there were no significant findings in the univariate analysis of the clopidogrel group. All bleeding incidents were easily manageable. Conclusion. Despite an increased bleeding ratio among patients under continued clopidogrel therapy, the performance of simple surgical procedures can be recommended. However, cautious preparation and careful hemostasis are indispensable