Feasibility of prediction protocols for EP in PUL
In order to evaluate the impact of
the complexity of each protocol on clinical work efficiency, we propose
to introduce the concept of “the rate of lost”, which has never been
put forward before. The rate of lost refers to the ratio of the number
of patients who have not received all of the diagnostic approaches
included in protocols before follow-up, management or final diagnosis to
the number of patients with complete data. Table 2 shows the number of
examination items and visits required by each protocol. When it comes to
the relationship between the sum of the number of visits and the number
of inspection items and the rate of lost, table 2 shows that the average
rate of lost in each category. The average rate of lost is
11.19% (95%CI 4.67-17.72) for the
sum of 3, 18.63% (95%CI 9.67-17.71) for the sum of 5 and 9.29%
(95%CI cannot be counted) for the sum of 6.
We also introduce average production utility, an economic concept, to
quantify the cost of improving prediction accuracy. It was used to
evaluate the effectiveness of each protocol under the expenditure of
unit cost. Considering the different economic development level, medical
insurance policies and cultural concepts of different countries and
regions, the sum of the number of visits and the number of examinations
required by the protocols were used to define the total cost, and AUC to
define the total benefit. Table 3 shows the average production utility
of the protocols. Among them, M1 is 0.181, progesterone cut-off is
0.242, M4 is 0.174, hCG ratio is 0.165, hCG cut-off is 0.195, and M6 is
0.157.