| Literature DB >> 27596486 |
Laura Rammazzo1,2, Dimitris Kikidis3, Amal Anwer4, Nora Macdonald5,4, Efthymios Kyrodimos3, Christoph Maurer6, Floris Wuyts7, Linda Luxon5,4,8, Athanasios Bibas3, Doris-Eva Bamiou9,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Balance problems are caused by multiple factors and often lead to falls and related fractures, bringing large socio-economic costs. The complexity of balance control mechanisms, the lack of medical expertise, and the absence of specialised equipment contribute to the delayed or incorrect diagnosis and management ofthese patients. Advances in computer science have allowed the development of computer systems that support clinical diagnosis and treatment decisions based on individualised patient data. The aim of the EMBalance decision support system (DSS) is to support doctors facing this clinical challenge, to make a definitive diagnosis and implement an effective management plan. The EMBalance study will determine the accuracy of this supportive tool when used by non-specialist doctors. This study is funded by the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme. METHODS/Entities:
Keywords: Decision support system; Dizziness; Feasibility study; Randomised controlled trial; Vertigo; Vestibular disease
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27596486 PMCID: PMC5011840 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-016-1568-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Trials ISSN: 1745-6215 Impact factor: 2.279
Participating centres: a comprehensive list of primary and tertiary care settings in the EMBalance study across Europe
| Institution | Primary care setting | Tertiary care setting |
|---|---|---|
| Greece (University of Athens) | Hippocrateio Hospital | Hippocrateio Hospital |
| Belgium (Antwerp University) | Antwerp University Hospital | Antwerp University Hospital |
| Germany (University of Freiburg) | Freiburg University Medical Centre | Freiburg University Medical Centre |
| UK (University College London) | Keats Group Practice | National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery |
| Hampstead Group Practice | ||
| Parliament Hill Practice | ||
| James Wigg Practice | ||
| Brondesbury Medical Centre |
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
| Inclusion criteria |
| • Aged 18–90 years |
| Exclusion criteria |
| • Aged <18 or >90 years |
Primary outcome assessment criteria
| Diagnosis (Dx) | ||||
| Single | Concurrent | |||
| If doctorDx = expert Dx | 100 % | If doctorDx1 + Dx2 = expertDx1 + Dx2 | 100 % | |
| If doctorDx ≠ expert Dx | 0 % | If doctorDx1 + Dx2 ≠ expertDx1 + Dx2 | 0 % | |
| If doctorDx1 = expertDx1 and doctorDx2 NA/≠ expertDx2 | 50 % | |||
| Management (Mng) | ||||
| Single | Multiple | |||
| If doctorMng = expertMng | 100 % | Maximum number of correct Mng plans = 2 | If doctorMng1,2 = expertMng1, 2 | 100 % |
| If doctorMng ≠ expertMng | 0 % | If doctorMng1,2 ≠ expertMng1,2 | 0 % | |
| If doctorMng1 = expertMng1 and doctorMng2 NA/≠ expertMng2 | 50 % | |||
| Maximum number of correct Mng plans = 3 | If doctorMng1,2,3 = expertMng1,2,3 | 100 % | ||
| If doctorMng1,2,3 NA/≠ expertMng1,2,3 | 0 % | |||
| If doctorMng1 = expertMng1 and doctorMng2,3 NA/≠ expertMng2,3 | 33.3 % | |||
| If doctorMng1,2 = expertMng1,2 and doctorMng3 NA/≠ expertMng3 | 66.6 % | |||
| Maximum number of correct Mng plans = 4 | If doctorMng1,2,3,4 = expertMng1,2,3,4 | 100 % | ||
| If doctorMng1,2,3,4 ≠ expertMng1,2,3,4 | 0 % | |||
| If doctorMng1 = expertMng1 and doctorMng2,3,4 NA/≠ expertMng2,3,4 | 25 % | |||
| If doctorMng1,2 = expertMng1,2 and doctorMng3,4 NA/≠ expertMng3,4 | 50 % | |||
| If doctorMng1,2,3 = expertMng1,2,3 and doctorMng4 NA/≠ expertMng4 | 75 % | |||
| Diagnosis | 100 % = correct | |||
| 50 % = half correct | ||||
| 0 % = incorrect | ||||
| Management | 100 % = fully correct | |||
| >50 % = majority correct | ||||
| 50 % = half correct | ||||
| <50 % = partially correct | ||||
| 0 % = incorrect | ||||
These criteria determine the level of agreement between the non-specialist doctor and the overseeing expert