Validation of the minimal clinically important difference for modified activities assessment scale.

BACKGROUND: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is the smallest change in patient-derived scores that is clinically important. We sought to validate the MCID of the modified activities assessment scale (mAAS). METHODS: Patients were surveyed prior to undergoing abdomen/pelvis CT scans and resurveyed one year later. Before resurvey, patients were asked if they had no change, worsening, or improvement in AW-QOL. The anchor-based MCID was calculated by taking a weighted mean of the difference between control (no change) and study (worsening/improved) groups. Distribution-based approach was calculated by one-half of the standard deviation in the QOL change. RESULTS: 52.8% of 181 patients self-reported no change, 39.2% reported improvement, and 8.3% reported worsening AW-QOL. The anchor-based approach MCID was 4. The distribution-based MCID was 16. CONCLUSION: Our study results validate prior work demonstrating similar ranges of the mAAS MCID. We recommend adopting an MCID of 5 and 15 for AW-QOL with mAAS.

Computed tomography in ventral hernia diagnosis: have we improved? A quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that agreement between readers of computed tomography (CT) scans for the diagnosis of a ventral hernia (VH) is poor (32% agreement, κ = 0.21). Recommendations were developed by surgeons and radiologists after determining common reasons for disagreement among CT reviewers; however, the long-term effect of adoption of these recommendations has not been assessed. The aim of this quality improvement (QI) project was to determine whether the incorporation of recommendations developed by surgeons and radiologists improves agreement among reviewers of CT scans in diagnosing a VH. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients, with a CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis in the past 1 y, attending a surgery clinic at a single institution was enrolled. Enrolled subjects underwent a standardized physical examination by a trained hernia surgeon to determine the likelihood of a clinical VH (no, indeterminate, or yes). The QI intervention was the distribution and implementation of previously described recommendations. After a year of intervention, independent radiologists assessed patients' CT scans for the presence or absence of a VH. Percent agreement and kappa were calculated to determine interobserver reliability. In-person discussion on scans with disagreement was held, and the results were used as a "gold standard" to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values for CT scan diagnosis of a VH. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients were included in the study. After QI intervention, seven radiologists agreed on 43% of the scans, and κ was 0.50 (P < 0.001). Agreement was highest among patients with a high clinical likelihood of a VH and lowest among patients with an indeterminate clinical likelihood. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.369 and 0.833, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: After the implementation of recommendations, there is improved agreement among radiologists reading CT scans for the diagnosis of a VH. However, there is substantial room for improvement, and CT scans for the diagnosis of VH is not ready for widespread use.

Use of Computed Tomography in Diagnosing Ventral Hernia Recurrence: A Blinded, Prospective, Multispecialty Evaluation.

IMPORTANCE: Physical examination misses up to one-third of ventral hernia recurrences seen on radiologic imaging. However, tests such as computed tomographic (CT) imaging are subject to interpretation and require validation of interobserver reliability. OBJECTIVE: To determine the interobserver reliability of CT scans for detecting a ventral hernia recurrence among surgeons and radiologists. We hypothesized there would be significant disagreement in the diagnosis of a ventral hernia recurrence among different observers. Our secondary aim was to determine reasons for disagreement in the interpretation of CT scans. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred patients who underwent ventral hernia repair from 2010-2011 at an academic health care center with a postoperative CT scan were randomly selected from a larger cohort. This study was conducted from July 2014 to March 2015. Prospective assessment of the presence or absence of a recurrent ventral hernia on CT scans was compared among 9 blinded reviewers and the radiology report. Five reviewers (consensus group) met to discuss all CT scans with disagreement. The discussion was assessed for keywords and key concepts. The remaining 4 reviewers (validation group) read the consensus group recommendations and reassessed the CT scans. Pre- and post-review κ were calculated; the post-review assessments were compared with clinical examination findings. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Interobserver reliability in determining hernia recurrence radiographically. RESULTS: Of 100 CT scans, there was disagreement among all 9 reviewers and the radiology report on the presence/absence of a ventral hernia in 73 cases (κ = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.54; P < .001). Following discussion among the consensus group, there remained disagreement in 10 cases (κ = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.95; P < .001). Among the validation group, the κ value had a slight improvement from 0.21 (95% CI, 0.12-0.33) to 0.34 (95% CI, 0.23-0.46) (P < .001) after reviewing the consensus group proposals. There was disagreement between clinical examination and the consensus group assessment of CT scans on the presence/absence of a ventral hernia in 25 cases. The concepts most frequently discussed were the absence of an accepted definition for a radiographic ventral hernia and differentiating pseudorecurrence from recurrence. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Owing to the high interobserver variability, CT scan was not associated with reliable diagnosing in ventral hernia recurrence. Consensus guidelines and improved communication between surgeon and radiologist may decrease interobserver variability.