Saltar al contenido principal

ETHNOS_APP

Inicio • Búsqueda • Revistas • Lista 0

Assigning Appropriateness Ratings for Diagnostic Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Using Two Different Approaches

Datos Bibliográficos

ID9103350
AutoresKatherine L Kahn (Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, autor de correspondencia), R E Park (autor de correspondencia), Jack Vennes, Jack A Vennes (University of Minnesota), Robert H Brook (0000-0001-7648-3764, University of California, Los Angeles, autor de correspondencia)
Año1992
Volumen30
Número11
Páginas1016-1028
Fecha de publicación1992-11-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaMedical Care (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0025-7079 • E-ISSN: 1537-1948
EditorialOvid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1097/00005650-199211000-00005
PMID1434955
OpenAlexW2069854193
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas2
Referencias citadas2

Methods that combine information in the medical literature with expert clinical judgment are needed to determine the appropriateness of use of a procedure. The purpose of this study is to better understand the reliability and construct validity of this process by comparing ratings of appropriateness for diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy that were developed using different approaches by two independent groups. Both the RAND/UCLA Health Services Utilization Study (HSUS) and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) combined scientific data with expert physician judgment to rate the appropriateness of specific clinical indications for the use of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. This study applies the ratings developed by each group to a nationally representative sample of 1,585 endoscopies performed on people 65 years of age and older in 1981. HSUS developed indications that could be used to rate all 1,585 procedures; ASGE indications were less comprehensive and applied to 70% (n = 1,115) of procedures. Of those rated by both groups, appropriateness category ratings agreed for 94% of the procedures. However, the procedures not rated by ASGE were unevenly distributed across HSUS appropriateness ratings. Twelve percent of procedures rated as appropriate by HSUS were not rated by ASGE, but 80% of procedures rated as equivocal by HSUS and 73% rated as inappropriate by HSUS were not rated by ASGE, for those procedures rated by both approaches there was good agreement; however, a more explicit and comprehensive method may be required if equivocal and inappropriate use of a procedure is to be identified

Appropriateness criteria · Clinical judgment · Construct (python library) · Endoscopy · Medical physics · MEDLINE · Radiology · Reliability (semiconductor) · Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy · Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection · Computer Science · Healthcare cost, quality, practices · Healthcare Policy and Management · Medicine · Surgery

  • The Effect of Panel Membership and Feedback on Ratings in a Two-Round Delphi Survey

    Stephen Campbell, Stephen M Campbell et al.•Medical Care•1999

  • Clinical Scenarios for Which Spinal Mobilization and Manipulation Are Considered by an Expert Panel to be Inappropriate (and Appropriate) for Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain

    Patricia M Herman, Eric L Hurwitz et al.•Medical Care•2019

  • Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures

    R E Park, Rohnert Park et al.•American Journal of Public Health•1986

  • Measuring the Clinical Appropriateness of the Use of a Procedure Can We Do It

    Katherine L Kahn, Jacqueline Kosecoff et al.•Medical Care•1988

Obras citantes distintas2
Citas por año0,07
Intervalo de citas1999 - 2019 (21)
Velocidad de citaciónhistorical
Altamente citadoNo
Tipos de citaNeutras: 2
Ethnos_APP • Proyecto Open Source • Licencia MIT • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacidad y Cookies • Documentación de la API: api.ethnos.app/docs • Código de la API: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Código del Frontend: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae