Reliability and validity of the gait classification system in children with cerebral palsy (GCS-CP)

BackgroundGait classification systems (GCS) may enable clinicians to differentiate gait patterns into clinically significant categories that assist in clinical decision-making and assessment of outcomes. Davids and Bagley in 2014 [1] described a GCS for children with cerebral palsy (GCS-CP). The purpose of our study was to use the GCS-CP for the first time on a sample of patients with CP and to evaluate the reliability and utility of the classification system.MethodsThe gait of 131 children with CP was retrospectively reviewed and classified according to Davids and Bagley’s classification using two-dimensional (2D) video and three-dimensional (3D) lower limb kinematics and kinetics. Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels were determined, and the Gait Profile Scores (GPS) calculated to characterize the sample concerning gait classification. The comparison between the groups was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test with respect to the non-normal distribution of the data. The intrarater and interrater reliability was determined using the Kappa index (k) statistics with 95% CI.ResultsAll GCS-CP groups were represented within the evaluated sample. Of the 131 cases evaluated, 127 (96.95%) were able to be classified with respect to sagittal plane stance phase gait deviations. All patients in the sample were able to be classified with respect to sagittal plane swing phase and transverse plane gait deviations. The interrater reliability was 0.596 and 0.485 for the first and second levels of the classification, respectively, according to the Fleiss’s Kappa statistics. Intrarater reliability was 0.776 and 0.714 for the raters one and two, respectively, according to the Cohen’s Kappa statistics.SignificanceThe GCS-CP exhibited clinical utility, successfully classifying almost all subjects with CP in two planes, based upon kinematic and kinetic data. The classification is valid and has moderate interrater and moderate to substantial intrarater reliability.     

Comparison of visual outcomes after two types of mix-and-match implanted trifocal extended-depth-of-focus and trifocal intraocular lenses

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology - To compare visual outcomes between two types of mix-and-match implanted trifocal extended-depth-of-focus (EDoF) and trifocal...     

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Nutrition Research Network: Validation of a Novel Nutrition Informatics Tool to Assess Agreement Between Documented Nutrition Care and Evidence-Based Recommendations

More evidence regarding registered dietitian nutritionist implementation of evidence-based nutrition practice guidelines (EBNPGs) is needed. We assessed the utility of an automated informatics tool to evaluate congruence of documented nutrition care with 13 individual recommendations in the diabetes mellitus (DM) EBNPG and with the guideline overall. A concurrent validation study was conducted using Nutrition Care Process Terminology documentation entered in the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Health Informatics Infrastructure by registered dietitian nutritionists caring for patients with DM. A 15% subset (n = 115) of the 790 patient encounters recorded were selected randomly, and the documented care was evaluated using the automated DM Expected Care Plan (ECP) Analyzer and expert audit. Recommendation-level congruence, as determined by each method, was compared using Cohen’s κ analysis, and the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the DM ECP Analyzer for assessing overall guideline-level congruence was calculated with expert audits as the “gold standard.” For recommendation-level congruence, the DM ECP Analyzer identified more instances of recommendation implementation in the patient encounters, and classified more encounters as including partial or full recommendation implementation for 10 of the 13 recommendations, compared with the expert audit. There was slight to fair agreement between the DM ECP and the expert audit for most individual recommendations, with a mean ± standard deviation level of agreement of κ = .17 ± .19 across all eligible recommendations. At the guideline level, the DM Analyzer had high accuracy (98.3%) and sensitivity (99.1%) and low specificity (0%; no true negatives detected). The DM ECP Analyzer is acceptable for conducting automated audits of nutrition documentation to assess congruence of documented care with recommendations for evidence-based care. Future changes to the EBNPG, Nutrition Care Process Terminology, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Health Informatics Infrastructure, and the DM ECP Analyzer could potentially improve recommendation-level performance. The DM ECP Analyzer can be modified for other EBNPGs to facilitate automated assessment of guideline implementation.     

Clinicians' Views of Patient-initiated Follow-up in Head and Neck Cancer: a Qualitative Study to Inform the PETNECK2 Trial

AimsCurrent follow-up for head and neck cancer (HNC) is ineffective, expensive and fails to address patients' needs. The PETNECK2 trial will compare a new model of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) with routine scheduled follow-up. This article reports UK clinicians' views about HNC follow-up and PIFU, to inform the trial design.Materials and methodsOnline focus groups with surgeons (ear, nose and throat/maxillofacial), oncologists, clinical nurse specialists and allied health professionals. Clinicians were recruited from professional bodies, mailing lists and personal contacts. Focus groups explored views on current follow-up and acceptability of the proposed PIFU intervention and randomised controlled trial design (presented by the study co-chief investigator), preferences, margins of equipoise, potential organisational barriers and thoughts about the content and format of PIFU. Data were interpreted using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsEight focus groups with 34 clinicians were conducted. Clinicians highlighted already known limitations with HNC follow-up – lack of flexibility to address the wide-ranging needs of HNC patients, expense and lack of evidence – and agreed that follow-up needs to change. They were enthusiastic about the PETNECK2 trial to develop and evaluate PIFU but had concerns that PIFU may not suit disengaged patients and may aggravate patient anxiety/fear of recurrence and delay detection of recurrence. Anticipated issues with implementation included ensuring a reliable route back to clinic and workload burden on nurses and allied health professionals.ConclusionsClinicians supported the evaluation of PIFU but voiced concerns about barriers to help-seeking. An emphasis on patient engagement, psychosocial issues, symptom reporting and reliable, quick routes back to clinic will be important. Certain patient groups may be less suited to PIFU, which will be evaluated in the trial. Early, meaningful, ongoing engagement with clinical teams and managers around the trial rationale and recruitment process will be important to discourage selective recruitment and address risk-averse behaviour and potential workload burden.