RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Patient-centered outcome measures have become an essential focus in research methodology in recent years. This may be particularly challenging in imaging research at the technology assessment level to incorporate patient-centeredness. A primary issue in this field is designing a reference standard that is applicable to the entire study population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This important element is necessary for translation of findings into clinical practice. In our work, computed tomographic perfusion imaging is being evaluated as a new technology used in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients to detect cerebral vasospasm. We have developed a new reference standard employing a multistage hierarchical design incorporating both clinical and imaging criteria to determine a diagnosis of vasospasm. RESULTS: A flowchart of the reference standard levels is provided for illustration. The limitations and potential biases that may occur using this reference standard are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: This reference standard will be applicable to the entire study population, including those with and without symptoms or further imaging with digital subtraction angiography.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES:Patient-centered outcome measures have become an essential focus in research methodology in recent years. This may be particularly challenging in imaging research at the technology assessment level to incorporate patient-centeredness. A primary issue in this field is designing a reference standard that is applicable to the entire study population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This important element is necessary for translation of findings into clinical practice. In our work, computed tomographic perfusion imaging is being evaluated as a new technology used in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhagepatients to detect cerebral vasospasm. We have developed a new reference standard employing a multistage hierarchical design incorporating both clinical and imaging criteria to determine a diagnosis of vasospasm. RESULTS: A flowchart of the reference standard levels is provided for illustration. The limitations and potential biases that may occur using this reference standard are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: This reference standard will be applicable to the entire study population, including those with and without symptoms or further imaging with digital subtraction angiography.
Authors: M Sean Kincaid; Michael J Souter; Miriam M Treggiari; N David Yanez; Anne Moore; Arthur M Lam Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Maria E Baldwin; R Loch Macdonald; Dezheng Huo; Roberta L Novakovic; Roberta L Novakovia; Fernando D Goldenberg; Jeffrey I Frank; Axel J Rosengart Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-10-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Edward D Greenberg; Y Pierre Gobin; Howard Riina; Carl E Johnson; Apostolos J Tsiouris; Joseph Comunale; Pina C Sanelli Journal: Imaging Med Date: 2011-06-01
Authors: P C Sanelli; I Ugorec; C E Johnson; J Tan; A Z Segal; M Fink; L A Heier; A J Tsiouris; J P Comunale; M John; P E Stieg; R D Zimmerman; A I Mushlin Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Rachel Gold; Melissa Reichman; Edward Greenberg; Jana Ivanidze; Elliott Elias; Apostolos J Tsiouris; Joseph P Comunale; Carl E Johnson; Pina C Sanelli Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: D I A Mir; A Gupta; A Dunning; L Puchi; C L Robinson; H-A B Epstein; P C Sanelli Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-12-05 Impact factor: 3.825