ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that crowdsourcing assessments could be applied to the Postureteroscopic Lesion Scale (PULS) for ureteral injury. METHODS: At a single institution, we prospectively digitally recorded 14 ureters at the terminal portion of standard ureteroscopic procedures. Each recording was reviewed by 10 global experts to determine a mean PULS score. Following training, the Crowd-Sourced Assessment of Technical Skills, C-SATS® (C-SATS, Inc., Seattle, WA) platform was used to obtain crowd-based reviews. The mean crowd PULS scores was determined using the linear mixed-effects (LME) model. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to measure the agreement among experts. Spearman's rank correlation (rho) was used to quantify the strength of the relationship between the crowd LME mean and the experts. RESULTS: Ten expert's reviews and 2100 layman reviews were obtained in 21 days and 49 hours, respectively. The ICC for the 10 experts was 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.49, 0.86). When the expert mean PULS was <1, the crowd scored those recordings at 1 or greater. The highest scored recording by the experts was a 3.2, which the crowd scored at 2.25. The correlation between the crowd LME means and expert means across all videos was 0.70 (p = 0.0056) indicative of moderately strong agreement. CONCLUSION: In this initial application of crowd-sourced evaluation of ureteral injury, there was a moderately strong correlation between crowd and expert ratings. Refinement of the training, through exposure to the nuances of ureteral injuries, in particular for PULS <1 or ≥3, may lead to better crowd/expert correlation. Compared to expert review, crowd data can be collected with much greater efficiency.
Subject(s)
Crowdsourcing , Ureter/injuries , Videotape Recording , Humans , Linear Models , Reproducibility of Results , Ureteroscopy/methods , Wounds and Injuries/diagnosisABSTRACT
The current report is the case of a 30-year-old male patient who presented with symptomatology suggestive of appendicitis. However, careful history-taking and laboratory tests led to the diagnosis of Clostridium difficile colitis, resulting in successful nonsurgical management of this patient. Although both appendicitis and C. difficile colitis are common conditions, they are rarely diagnosed concurrently. This is reflected by paucity of literature describing this manifestation. Given this current presentation, the authors contend that the manifestation of extracolonic colitis within the appendix is possibly underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed as an acute appendicitis and thus potentially results in unnecessary surgical intervention. This report reminds physicians to consider the medical approach to managing acute appendicitis given the possibility of underlying C. difficile colitis as the causative factor.
