Originally posted by Pooka1
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The ethics of bracing (and PT) with a Scoliscore <41
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by hdugger View PostI mean that, if they didn't somehow control for bracing when developing the test, then the biochemical results they ended up with aren't solid.Sharon, mother of identical twin girls with scoliosis
No island of sanity.
Question: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
Answer: Medicine
"We are all African."
Comment
-
I also think that a lot of doctors (and parents) are going to get out of their comfort zone with this test when confronted with children with curves somewhere over 30* with growing left to do, who have a low score. That would just be human nature. So my point is, no matter how predictive the manufacturer says the test is (and I just assumed that none of the study participants had been braced, but perhaps that's not correct), how the scores will be used is still a very open question. It may not get the broad application that is being proposed here in this thread by the OP.mamandcrm
G diagnosed 6/08 at almost 7 with 25*
Providence night brace, increased to 35*
Rigo-Cheneau brace full-time 12/08-4/10
14* at 10/09 OOB x-ray
11* at 4/10 OOB x-ray
Wearing R-C part-time since 4/10
latest OOB xray 5/14 13*
currently going on 13 yrs old
I no longer participate in this forum though I will update signature from time to time with status
Comment
-
Originally posted by skevimc View PostIt doesn't. Assuming I understand what you're asking or saying. The three cohorts they used to test/validate the AIS-PT were selected in order to model the standard populations. 1. those referred to the doctor by in-school screening. 2. those who are seen in an active spine surgery clinic. 3. Same as #2 but with males instead of females.
In the validation tests, group 1 had 0 severe curves with an AIS-PT <41. Groups 2 and 3 had a total of 5 with a severe curve and an AIS-PT <41.
You are wondering if the scoliscore has a 100% accuracy/prediction rate for small curves, but that's not what the study was about.
I realize the two other groups were <100% (though they were still high).Sharon, mother of identical twin girls with scoliosis
No island of sanity.
Question: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
Answer: Medicine
"We are all African."
Comment
-
Originally posted by hdugger View PostI wonder if it's made clear to parents that their low scoring child's curve could increase 20 degrees (given that they came in with a 20 degree curve) and still be considered a complete success.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hdugger View PostI didn't mean that the markers would change with bracing, but rather that a braced child with a 35 degree curve and an unbraced child with a 35 degree curve would end up in same low risk pool when studied retrospectively, but they might have a very unequal risk when studied prospectively with bracing controlled for.
That is, the braced 35 degree child, if unbraced, might have ended up with a 50 degree curve, and thus would not be included with the low-risk group.
Am I missing something here?
At present, 178 of the 183 patients (97%) with AIS-PT scores >190 have progressed to a severe curve. Indeed, 175 of 178 of those patients (98%) have undergone fusion surgery. Of these 178 patients, 46.7% reported compliance with prescribed brace treatment.
Originally posted by Pooka1 View PostI think the claim is that of the cohort of AIS girls with small curves and a score <41, 100% ended up <40* at maturity. That is what I think the abstract said and what I have been saying. Is that incorrect?
I realize the two other groups were <100% (though they were still high).
Comment
-
Originally posted by hdugger View PostThe small risk group is children sent in from in-school screening. I'm not sure if their curve size was any different from the other groups, and I think there were both boys and girls in that group.
Comment
-
Originally posted by skevimc View PostThey don't mention how many people with a score <190 were in a brace. What the test does the best is to say that people with a score of >190 have ~97% chance of progressing to a severe curve. The cut off of 190 was picked because the regression curve drops off a cliff and people in the 180's appear to have a risk anywhere from 40%-90%. 170's appear to be anywhere from 20%-45%. And anything below 150 has <20% chance of progressing to severe.
Comment
-
A crystal ball for the spine
DNA test helps predict likely progression of scoliosis
By M.B. Sutherland, Special to the Tribune
January 5, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/health/ct-x-s...,7162790.story
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ballet Mom View Postskevimc,
Could you let us know what are the Cobb angle of the curves that are classified as mild, moderate or severe in this study?
Thanks.
Moderate = 26-40°
Severe = "Progression to a severe curve was defined according to the usual clinical criteria (i.e., progression to a >40° curve in an individual still growing, or progression to a >50° curve in an adult)
Originally posted by hdugger View PostAh, that's very helpful (and the exact reverse of how I understood it). So, the best use of this test is in predicting the people who need the *most* treatment (those above 190), rather then in recommending less treatment for those with lower scores?
They basically avoid using the PPV though, because they don't have the statistical power or confidence to prove it. As well, they say that the NPV is more clinically relevant than the PPV due to the percentage of over-treatment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by skevimc View PostThe group to which you are referring is the "low risk group". This did not necessarily imply a small curve. This group was based on the population that generally gets referred to a doctor due to in-school screening. They then populated that group by selecting a specific percentage of patients for the mild-moderate-severe curves (85%, 12%, 3% respectively). It's kind of a weird way to pick the groups and I only partially understand why they did it. At any rate, of this group (n=277) there were 176 patients that had a score <41. Of these 176, 0 had a severe curve. Additionally, there were 101 patients with a score >40. 93 had a moderate-mild curve and 8 had a severe curve.Sharon, mother of identical twin girls with scoliosis
No island of sanity.
Question: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
Answer: Medicine
"We are all African."
Comment
-
Originally posted by skevimc View PostWhile there is strength in the "Positive predictive value" (PPV), which is what you are saying. The real finding of the study is more in the NPV "negative predictive value". But putting it all together show that those with a value <41 have an extremely low (>98%) chance of NOT progressing to >40° and those with a score >190 have ~ 97% chance of progressing beyond 40°. Or to put it another way, score <41 has <1-2% chance of progressing beyond 40°; score >190 has >97% of progressing beyond 40°.
They basically avoid using the PPV though, because they don't have the statistical power or confidence to prove it. As well, they say that the NPV is more clinically relevant than the PPV due to the percentage of over-treatment.Sharon, mother of identical twin girls with scoliosis
No island of sanity.
Question: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
Answer: Medicine
"We are all African."
Comment
-
Test developers
Originally posted by hdugger View PostI can't answer any of those questions. All I know is that the person who developed the test isn't saying that he's relying solely on its results. I'm guessing there's a reason for that.
Ward, Kenneth MD*; Ogilvie, James W. MD*; Singleton, Marc V. MS*; Chettier, Rakesh MS*; Engler, Gordon MD†; Nelson, Lesa M. BS*Sharon, mother of identical twin girls with scoliosis
No island of sanity.
Question: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
Answer: Medicine
"We are all African."
Comment
Comment