RAND-like Appropriateness Methodology Consensus for Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma in Latin America

PURPOSE: To report the results of a Latin American consensus panel regarding the diagnosis and management of primary open-angle glaucoma and to compare these results with those from a similar panel in the United States. DESIGN: A RAND-like (Research and Development) appropriateness methodology was used to assess glaucoma practice in Latin America. METHODS: The 148 polling statements created for the RAND-like analysis in the United States and 10 additional statements specific to glaucoma care in Latin America were presented to a panel of Latin American glaucoma experts. Panelists were polled in private using the RAND-like methodology before and after the panel meeting. RESULTS: Consensus agreement or disagreement among Latin American experts was reached for 51.3% of statements before the meeting and increased to 66.5% in the private, anonymous meeting after polling (79.0% agreement, 21.0% disagreement). Although there was a high degree of concordance (111 of 148 statements; 75%) between the results of this Latin American panel and the United States panel, there were some notable exceptions relating to diagnostic and therapeutic decision making. CONCLUSIONS: This RAND-like consensus methodology provides a perspective of how Latin American glaucoma practitioners view many aspects of glaucoma and compares these results with those obtained using a similar methodology from practitioners in the United States. These findings may be helpful to ophthalmologists providing glaucoma care in Latin America and in other regions of the world. (Am J Ophthalmol 2012;154: 460-465. (C) 2012 by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Comparison of different dosimetric methods for red marrow absorbed dose calculation in thyroid cancer therapy

Several dosimetric methods have been proposed for estimating red marrow absorbed dose (RMAD) when radionuclide therapy is planned for differentiated thyroid cancer, although to date, there is no consensus as to whether dose calculation should be based on blood-activity concentration or not. Our purpose was to compare RMADs derived from methods that require collecting patients' blood samples versus those involving OLINDA/EXM software, thereby precluding this invasive procedure. This is a retrospective study that included 34 patients under treatment for metastatic thyroid disease. A deviation of 10 between RMADs was found, when comparing the doses from the most usual invasive dosimetric methods and those from OLINDA/EXM. No statistical difference between the methods was discovered, whereby the need for invasive procedures when calculating the dose is questioned. The use of OLINDA/EXM in clinical routine could possibly diminish data collection, thus giving rise to a simultaneous reduction in time and clinical costs, besides avoiding any kind of discomfort on the part of the patients involved.

GRBAS and Cape-V Scales: High Reliability and Consensus When Applied at Different Times

Objectives. To evaluate whether the overall dysphonia grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia, and strain (GRBAS) scale, and the Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation-Voice (CAPE-V) scale show the same reliability and consensus when applied to the same vocal sample at different times. Study Design. Observational cross-sectional study. Methods. Sixty subjects had their voices recorded according to the tasks proposed in the CAPE-V scale. Vowels /a/ and /i/ were sustained between 3 and 5 seconds. Reproduction of six sentences and spontaneous speech from the request "Tell me about your voice" were analyzed. For the analysis of the GRBAS scale, the sustained vowel and reading tasks of the sentences was used. Auditory-perceptual voice analyses were conducted by three expert speech therapists with more than 5 years of experience and familiar with both the scales. Results. A strong correlation was observed in the intrajudge consensus analysis, both for the GRBAS scale as well as for CAPE-V, with intraclass coefficient values ranging from 0.923 to 0.985. A high degree of correlation between the general GRBAS and CAPE-V grades (coefficient = 0.842) was observed, with similarities in the grades of dysphonia distribution in both scales. The evaluators indicated a mild difficulty in applying the GRBAS scale and low to mild difficulty in applying the CAPE-V scale. The three evaluators agreed when indicating the GRBAS scale as the fastest and the CAPE-V scale as the most sensitive, especially for detecting small changes in voice. Conclusions. The two scales are reliable and are indicated for use in analyzing voice quality.