Scope

This page outlines the parts of the journal article which we will attempt to reproduce.

All images and quotes on this page are sourced from Kim et al. (2021)

Within scope

Figure 1

“Fig 1. 65-year-old cohort: Change in key outcomes over varying delay to primary invitation (model I1).” Kim et al. (2021)

Table 2

“Table 2. Predicted excess AAA deaths and emergency operations in the national invited 65-year-old cohort over 30y period.” Kim et al. (2021)

Figure 2

“Fig 2. 65-year-old cohort: Change in key outcomes over varying attendance at primary scan (model I2).” Kim et al. (2021)

Figure 3

“Fig 3. Surveillance cohort: Change in key outcomes over varying suspension of surveillance scans (model S1).” Kim et al. (2021)

In-text result 1

In bold are the items not captured in Table 3 or Figure 3.

“Suspending ultrasound scans in the surveillance cohort could result in 9 (0.4% increase) additional AAA-related deaths if scans were suspended for one year (Table 3, Fig 3). Of these, 2 (1% increase) are in the sub-group measuring 4.5–4.9 cm at the start of the pandemic and 7 (8% increase) in the sub-group measuring 5.0–5.4 cm; <0.1 are in the 3.0–4.4 cm sub-group. More pronounced effects are evident for suspension for two years and beyond. Suspending surveillance for two years could result in 40 excess AAA-related deaths overall; a 1.9% increase over the lifetime of the surveillance cohort. Of these, 1 is in the 3.0–4.4 cm sub-group and 17 (7% increase) in the 4.5–4.9cm sub-group. However, the remaining 22 excess deaths are in the 5.0–5.4cm range, corresponding to a 24% increase in AAA-related deaths in this sub-group.”

Figure 4

“Fig 4. Surveillance cohort: Change in key outcomes over varying dropout rates, applied for (i) 1y (model I2.1) and (ii) 2y (model I2.2).” Kim et al. (2021)

Figure 5

“Fig 5. Surveillance cohort: Change in key outcomes over varying time at increased (7cm) threshold (model I3).” Kim et al. (2021)

Table 3

“Table 3. Predicted excess AAA deaths and emergency operations in the national surveillance cohort over 30y period.” Kim et al. (2021)

Supplementary figure 3

“S3 Fig. Cumulative impact of scenarios on surveillance cohort.” Kim et al. (2021)

Supplementary table 2

“S2 Tab. Predicted excess AAA deaths and emergency operations in the national surveillance cohort over 30y period” Kim et al. (2021)

Outside scope

Table 1

Input parameters and scenarios.

“Table 1. Modelled COVID policy scenarios for AAA services.” Kim et al. (2021)

Supplementary figure 1

Part of methods (rather than a result from the model).

Kim et al. (2021)

Supplementary figure 2

Part of methods (rather than a result from the model).

Kim et al. (2021)

“Fig 1. 65-year-old cohort: Change in key outcomes over varying delay to primary invitation (model I1).” Kim et al. (2021) “Table 2. Predicted excess AAA deaths and emergency operations in the national invited 65-year-old cohort over 30y period.” Kim et al. (2021) “Fig 2. 65-year-old cohort: Change in key outcomes over varying attendance at primary scan (model I2).” Kim et al. (2021) “Fig 3. Surveillance cohort: Change in key outcomes over varying suspension of surveillance scans (model S1).” Kim et al. (2021) “Fig 4. Surveillance cohort: Change in key outcomes over varying dropout rates, applied for (i) 1y (model I2.1) and (ii) 2y (model I2.2).” Kim et al. (2021) “Fig 5. Surveillance cohort: Change in key outcomes over varying time at increased (7cm) threshold (model I3).” Kim et al. (2021) “Table 3. Predicted excess AAA deaths and emergency operations in the national surveillance cohort over 30y period.” Kim et al. (2021) “S3 Fig. Cumulative impact of scenarios on surveillance cohort.” Kim et al. (2021) “S2 Tab. Predicted excess AAA deaths and emergency operations in the national surveillance cohort over 30y period” Kim et al. (2021) “Table 1. Modelled COVID policy scenarios for AAA services.” Kim et al. (2021) Kim et al. (2021) Kim et al. (2021)

References

Kim, Lois G., Michael J. Sweeting, Morag Armer, Jo Jacomelli, Akhtar Nasim, and Seamus C. Harrison. 2021. “Modelling the Impact of Changes to Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening and Treatment Services in England During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” PLOS ONE 16 (6): e0253327. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253327.