Browsing by Subject "validation"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Are prediction models for vaginal birth after cesarean accurate?
    (American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2019-05) Harris, Benjamin S; Heine, R Phillips; Park, Jinyoung; Faurot, Keturah R; Hopkins, Maeve K; Rivara, Andrew J; Kemeny, Hanna R; Grotegut, Chad A; Jelovsek, J Eric
    BACKGROUND:The use of trial of labor after cesarean delivery calculators in the prediction of successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery gives physicians an evidence-based tool to assist with patient counseling and risk stratification. Before deployment of prediction models for routine care at an institutional level, it is recommended to test their performance initially in the institution's target population. This allows the institution to understand not only the overall accuracy of the model for the intended population but also to comprehend where the accuracy of the model is most limited when predicting across the range of predictions (calibration). OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to compare 3 models that predict successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery with the use of a single tertiary referral cohort before continuous model deployment in the electronic medical record. STUDY DESIGN:All cesarean births for failed trial of labor after cesarean delivery and successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery at an academic health system between May 2013 and March 2016 were reviewed. Women with a history of 1 previous cesarean birth who underwent a trial of labor with a term (≥37 weeks gestation), cephalic, and singleton gestation were included. Women with antepartum intrauterine fetal death or fetal anomalies were excluded. The probability of successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery was calculated with the use of 3 prediction models: Grobman 2007, Grobman 2009, and Metz 2013 and compared with actual vaginal birth after cesarean delivery success. Each model's performance was measured with the use of concordance indices, Brier scores, and calibration plots. Decision curve analysis identified the range of threshold probabilities for which the best prediction model would be of clinical value. RESULTS:Four hundred four women met the eligibility criteria. The observed rate of successful vaginal birth after cesarean delivery was 75% (305/404). Concordance indices were 0.717 (95% confidence interval, 0.659-0.778), 0.703 (95% confidence interval, 0.647-0.758), and 0.727 (95% confidence interval, 0.669-0.779), respectively. Brier scores were 0.172, 0.205, and 0.179, respectively. Calibration demonstrated that Grobman 2007 and Metz vaginal birth after cesarean delivery models were most accurate when predicted probabilities were >60% and were beneficial for counseling women who did not desire to have vaginal birth after cesarean delivery but had a predicted success rates of 60-90%. The models underpredicted actual probabilities when predicting success at <60%. The Grobman 2007 and Metz vaginal birth after cesarean delivery models provided greatest net benefit between threshold probabilities of 60-90% but did not provide a net benefit with lower predicted probabilities of success compared with a strategy of recommending vaginal birth after cesarean delivery for all women . CONCLUSION:When 3 commonly used vaginal birth after cesarean delivery prediction models are compared in the same population, there are differences in performance that may affect an institution's choice of which model to use.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Recommendations towards standards for quantitative MRI (qMRI) and outstanding needs.
    (Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2019-01-24) Keenan, Kathryn E; Biller, Joshua R; Delfino, Jana G; Boss, Michael A; Does, Mark D; Evelhoch, Jeffrey L; Griswold, Mark A; Gunter, Jeffrey L; Hinks, R Scott; Hoffman, Stuart W; Kim, Geena; Lattanzi, Riccardo; Li, Xiaojuan; Marinelli, Luca; Metzger, Gregory J; Mukherjee, Pratik; Nordstrom, Robert J; Peskin, Adele P; Perez, Elena; Russek, Stephen E; Sahiner, Berkman; Serkova, Natalie; Shukla-Dave, Amita; Steckner, Michael; Stupic, Karl F; Wilmes, Lisa J; Wu, Holden H; Zhang, Huiming; Jackson, Edward F; Sullivan, Daniel C
    LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:5 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Validation of the Food-Linked Virtual Response task.
    (J Health Psychol, 2015-07-30) Pascoe, Elizabeth A; Richman, Laura Smart; Kort, Daniel
    This research validates a computerized dietary selection task (Food-Linked Virtual Response or FLVR) for use in studies of food consumption. In two studies, FLVR task responses were compared with measures of health consciousness, mood, body mass index, personality, cognitive restraint toward food, and actual food selections from a buffet table. The FLVR task was associated with variables which typically predict healthy decision-making and was unrelated to mood or body mass index. Furthermore, the FLVR task predicted participants' unhealthy selections from the buffet, but not overall amount of food. The FLVR task is an inexpensive, valid, and easily administered option for assessing momentary dietary decisions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Validation of the Observer-Reported Communication Ability (ORCA) Measure for Individuals With Angelman Syndrome.
    (American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities, 2023-05) Zigler, Christina K; Lin, Li; McFatrich, Molly; Lucas, Nicole; Gordon, Kelly L; Jones, Harrison N; Berent, Allyson; Panagoulias, Jennifer; Evans, Paula; Reeve, Bryce B
    There is a critical need for high-quality clinical outcome assessments to capture the important aspects of communication ability of individuals with Angelman syndrome (AS). To center the perspective of caregivers, our team developed the novel Observer-Reported Communication Ability (ORCA) measure using best practice guidelines, with the goal of developing a measure that could be administered to caregivers directly without the need for a certified administrator for use in clinical trials. To refine the draft measure, we conducted two rounds of cognitive interviews with 24 caregivers and a quantitative study including 249 caregivers. The results from both studies support the overall content validity, construct validity, and the reliability of the ORCA measure for individuals with AS > 2 years old for use in research contexts. Future work should explore the responsiveness of ORCA measures to changes over time in a diverse sample.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Validation of the Polish version of the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS).
    (Neurologia i neurochirurgia polska, 2020-07-08) Siuda, Joanna; Boczarska-Jedynak, Magdalena; Budrewicz, Sławomir; Dulski, Jarosław; Figura, Monika; Fiszer, Urszula; Gajos, Agata; Gorzkowska, Agnieszka; Koziorowska-Gawron, Ewa; Koziorowski, Dariusz; Krygowska-Wajs, Anna; Rudzińska-Bar, Monika; Sławek, Jarosław; Ren, Xuehan; Luo, Sheng; Martinez-Martin, Pablo; Stebbins, Glenn; Goetz, Christopher G; Opala, Grzegorz; MDS-UPDRS Polish Validation Task Force
    BACKGROUND:In 2008, the Movement Disorders Society (MDS) published a new Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) as the official benchmark scale for Parkinson's Disease (PD). We have translated and validated the Polish version of the MDS-UPDRS, explored its dimensionality, and compared it to the original English one. METHODS:The MDS-UPDRS was translated into Polish by a team of Polish investigators led by JS and GO. The back-translation was completed by colleagues fluent in both languages (Polish and English) who were not involved in the original translation, and was reviewed by members of the MDS Rating Scales Programme. Then the translated version of the MDS-UPDRS underwent cognitive pretesting, and the translation was modified based on the results. The final translation was approved as the Official Working Document of the MDS-UPDRS Polish version, and was tested on 355 Polish PD patients recruited at movement disorders centres all over Poland (at Katowice, Gdańsk, Łódź, Warsaw, Wrocław, and Kraków). Confirmatory and explanatory factor analyses were applied to determine whether the factor structure of the English version could be confirmed in the Polish version. RESULTS:The Polish version of the MDS-UPDRS showed satisfactory clinimetric properties. The internal consistency of the Polish version was satisfactory. In the confirmatory factor analysis, all four parts had greater than 0.90 comparative fit index (CFI) compared to the original English MDS-UPDRS. Explanatory factor analysis suggested that the Polish version differed from the English version only within an acceptable range. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:The Polish version of the MDS-UPDRS meets the requirements to be designated as the Official Polish Version of the MDS-UPDRS, and is available on the MDS web page. We strongly recommend using the MDS-UPDRS instead of the UPDRS for research purposes and in everyday clinical practice.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Validation of the Polish version of the Unified Dyskinesia Rating Scale (UDysRS).
    (Neurologia i neurochirurgia polska, 2021-02-02) Siuda, Joanna; Boczarska-Jedynak, Magdalena; Budrewicz, Sławomir; Dulski, Jarosław; Figura, Monika; Fiszer, Urszula; Gajos, Agata; Gorzkowska, Agnieszka; Koziorowska-Gawron, Ewa; Koziorowski, Dariusz; Krygowska-Wajs, Anna; Rudzińska-Bar, Monika; Sławek, Jarosław; Toś, Mateusz; Wójcik-Pędziwiatr, Magdalena; Lin, Jeffrey; Luo, Sheng; Martinez-Martin, Pablo; Stebbins, Glenn T; Goetz, Christopher G; Opala, Grzegorz; Polish UDysRS Validation Task Force

    Background

    In 2008, the Movement Disorders Society published the Unified Dyskinesia Rating Scale (UDysRS). This has become the established tool for assessing the severity and disability associated with dyskinesia in patients with Parkinson's Disease (PD). We translated and validated the Polish version of the UDysRS, explored its dimensionality, and compared it to the Spanish version, which is the Reference Standard for UDysRS translations.

    Material and methods

    The UDysRS was translated into Polish by a team led by JS and GO. The back-translation, completed by colleagues fluent in both Polish and English who were not involved in the original translation, was reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of the MDS Rating Scales Programme. Then the translated version of the UDysRS underwent cognitive pretesting, and the translation was modified based on the results. The approved version was considered to be the Official Working Document of the Polish UDysRS and was tested on 250 Polish PD patients recruited at movement disorder centres. Data was compared to the Reference Standard used for validating UDysRS translations.

    Results

    The overall factor structure of the Polish version was consistent with that of the Reference Standard version, as evidenced by the high Confirmatory Fit Index score (CFI = 0.98). The Polish UDysRS was thus confirmed to share a common factor structure with the Reference Standard.

    Conclusions

    The Official Polish UDysRS translation is recommended for use in clinical and research settings. Worldwide use of uniform rating measures offers a common ground to study similarities and differences in disease manifestations and progression across cultures.