-
Int J Qual Health Care · Feb 2003
Review Comparative StudyDevelopment of appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy: comparison between a standardized expert panel and an evidence-based medicine approach.
- Anne Nicollier-Fahrni, John-Paul Vader, Florian Froehlich, Jean-Jacques Gonvers, and Bernard Burnand.
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
- Int J Qual Health Care. 2003 Feb 1;15(1):15-22.
ObjectivesTo assess the degree of agreement between appropriateness criteria for the use of colonoscopy developed by a standardized expert panel method and evidence from published studies.DesignDescriptive, agreement study.SettingMultidisciplinary panel; primary care practice in Switzerland.ParticipantsNine national experts; 577 primary care patients referred for colonoscopy, 154 published papers.InterventionsEvaluation of the appropriateness of 402 possible clinical indications for colonoscopy, based on a comprehensive review of the literature.Main Outcomes MeasuresProportion of agreement (weighted kappa), between panel- and literature-based appropriateness categories (appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate) for theoretical and actual indications encountered.ResultsNineteen of 402 indications rated by the panel could be based on the evidence retrieved from eight randomized clinical trials. A 68% agreement (kappa = 0.52) was found between panel- and study-based criteria. The addition of an uncontrolled trial and seven observational studies yielded a 71% agreement (kappa = 0.63). Agreement was similar when examining 577 actual cases: 69% agreement, kappa = 0.47. Agreement between panel-based indications and published evidence was not influenced by the perceived comprehensiveness and the apparent quality of the published reports.ConclusionsEvidence for the appropriateness of most indications for colonoscopy could not be derived directly from the published literature. Agreement between appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel and evidence from published studies was moderate to good, where available. New approaches should be sought in order to systematically integrate complementary evidence obtained from clinical trials and expert panels into practice guidelines.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.