The Reliability of Assessing the Appropriateness of Requested Diagnostic Tests
Despite a poor reliability, peer assessment is the traditional method to assess the appropriateness of health care activities. This article describes the reliability of the human assessment of the appropriateness of diagnostic tests requests. The authors used a random selection of 1217 tests from 25...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Medical decision making 2003-01, Vol.23 (1), p.31-37 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 37 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 31 |
| container_title | Medical decision making |
| container_volume | 23 |
| creator | Bindels, Rianne Hasman, Arie van Wersch, Jan W. J. Pop, Peter Winkens, Ron A. G. |
| description | Despite a poor reliability, peer assessment is the traditional method to assess the appropriateness of health care activities. This article describes the reliability of the human assessment of the appropriateness of diagnostic tests requests. The authors used a random selection of 1217 tests from 253 request forms submitted by general practitioners in the Maastricht region of the Netherlands. Three reviewers independently assessed the appropriateness of each requested test. Interrater kappa values ranged from 0.33 to 0.42, and kappa values of intrarater agreement ranged from 0.48 to 0.68. The joint reliability coefficient of the 3 reviewers was 0.66. This reliability is sufficient to review test ordering over a series of cases but is not sufficient to make case-by-case assessments. Sixteen reviewers are needed to obtain a joint reliability of 0.95. The authors conclude that there is substantial variation in assessment concerning what is an appropriately requested diagnostic test and that this feedback method is not reliable enough to make a case-by-case assessment. Computer support may be beneficial to support and make the process of peer review more uniform. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0272989X02239647 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73037889</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0272989X02239647</sage_id><sourcerecordid>283009021</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-75785d64869532ff13aef93894e839b8f791f7e5426aa87f6df6c9af4695eb423</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtLw0AUhQdRbK3uXUlw4S4678ey-IaiUCp0FybpnTolTWomWfTfO7GFQsHVwD3fPXPuQeia4HtClHrAVFGjzRxTyozk6gQNiRA0lZrMT9Gwl9NeH6CLEFYYE240P0cDQoVmXLAh-ph9QzKF0tvcl77dJrVLxiFACL5aJm0Ux5tNU28ab1uo4rgHpvDTQWhhkTx5u6zq0PoimcVJuERnzpYBrvbvCH29PM8e39LJ5-v743iSFkziNlVCabGQXEsjGHWOMAvOMG04aGZy7ZQhToHgVFqrlZMLJwtjHY885JyyEbrb-cZsf1mytQ8FlKWtoO5CphhmSmsTwdsjcFV3TRWzZbEzbSgxJEJ4BxVNHUIDLov3rm2zzQjO-qKz46Ljys3et8vXsDgs7JuNQLoDgl3C4dN_DX8BkdmFDg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>223892191</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Reliability of Assessing the Appropriateness of Requested Diagnostic Tests</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Bindels, Rianne ; Hasman, Arie ; van Wersch, Jan W. J. ; Pop, Peter ; Winkens, Ron A. G.</creator><creatorcontrib>Bindels, Rianne ; Hasman, Arie ; van Wersch, Jan W. J. ; Pop, Peter ; Winkens, Ron A. G.</creatorcontrib><description>Despite a poor reliability, peer assessment is the traditional method to assess the appropriateness of health care activities. This article describes the reliability of the human assessment of the appropriateness of diagnostic tests requests. The authors used a random selection of 1217 tests from 253 request forms submitted by general practitioners in the Maastricht region of the Netherlands. Three reviewers independently assessed the appropriateness of each requested test. Interrater kappa values ranged from 0.33 to 0.42, and kappa values of intrarater agreement ranged from 0.48 to 0.68. The joint reliability coefficient of the 3 reviewers was 0.66. This reliability is sufficient to review test ordering over a series of cases but is not sufficient to make case-by-case assessments. Sixteen reviewers are needed to obtain a joint reliability of 0.95. The authors conclude that there is substantial variation in assessment concerning what is an appropriately requested diagnostic test and that this feedback method is not reliable enough to make a case-by-case assessment. Computer support may be beneficial to support and make the process of peer review more uniform.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0272-989X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-681X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0272989X02239647</identifier><identifier>PMID: 12583453</identifier><identifier>CODEN: MDMADE</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Decision Support Systems, Clinical ; Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures - utilization ; Family Practice ; Humans ; Netherlands ; Observer Variation ; Peer Review, Health Care - standards ; Practice Guidelines as Topic ; Practice Patterns, Physicians ; Reproducibility of Results ; Utilization Review - standards</subject><ispartof>Medical decision making, 2003-01, Vol.23 (1), p.31-37</ispartof><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. Jan/Feb 2003</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-75785d64869532ff13aef93894e839b8f791f7e5426aa87f6df6c9af4695eb423</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-75785d64869532ff13aef93894e839b8f791f7e5426aa87f6df6c9af4695eb423</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0272989X02239647$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X02239647$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27924,27925,43621,43622</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12583453$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bindels, Rianne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hasman, Arie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Wersch, Jan W. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pop, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Winkens, Ron A. G.</creatorcontrib><title>The Reliability of Assessing the Appropriateness of Requested Diagnostic Tests</title><title>Medical decision making</title><addtitle>Med Decis Making</addtitle><description>Despite a poor reliability, peer assessment is the traditional method to assess the appropriateness of health care activities. This article describes the reliability of the human assessment of the appropriateness of diagnostic tests requests. The authors used a random selection of 1217 tests from 253 request forms submitted by general practitioners in the Maastricht region of the Netherlands. Three reviewers independently assessed the appropriateness of each requested test. Interrater kappa values ranged from 0.33 to 0.42, and kappa values of intrarater agreement ranged from 0.48 to 0.68. The joint reliability coefficient of the 3 reviewers was 0.66. This reliability is sufficient to review test ordering over a series of cases but is not sufficient to make case-by-case assessments. Sixteen reviewers are needed to obtain a joint reliability of 0.95. The authors conclude that there is substantial variation in assessment concerning what is an appropriately requested diagnostic test and that this feedback method is not reliable enough to make a case-by-case assessment. Computer support may be beneficial to support and make the process of peer review more uniform.</description><subject>Decision Support Systems, Clinical</subject><subject>Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures - utilization</subject><subject>Family Practice</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Netherlands</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Peer Review, Health Care - standards</subject><subject>Practice Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Practice Patterns, Physicians</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Utilization Review - standards</subject><issn>0272-989X</issn><issn>1552-681X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEtLw0AUhQdRbK3uXUlw4S4678ey-IaiUCp0FybpnTolTWomWfTfO7GFQsHVwD3fPXPuQeia4HtClHrAVFGjzRxTyozk6gQNiRA0lZrMT9Gwl9NeH6CLEFYYE240P0cDQoVmXLAh-ph9QzKF0tvcl77dJrVLxiFACL5aJm0Ux5tNU28ab1uo4rgHpvDTQWhhkTx5u6zq0PoimcVJuERnzpYBrvbvCH29PM8e39LJ5-v743iSFkziNlVCabGQXEsjGHWOMAvOMG04aGZy7ZQhToHgVFqrlZMLJwtjHY885JyyEbrb-cZsf1mytQ8FlKWtoO5CphhmSmsTwdsjcFV3TRWzZbEzbSgxJEJ4BxVNHUIDLov3rm2zzQjO-qKz46Ljys3et8vXsDgs7JuNQLoDgl3C4dN_DX8BkdmFDg</recordid><startdate>200301</startdate><enddate>200301</enddate><creator>Bindels, Rianne</creator><creator>Hasman, Arie</creator><creator>van Wersch, Jan W. J.</creator><creator>Pop, Peter</creator><creator>Winkens, Ron A. G.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200301</creationdate><title>The Reliability of Assessing the Appropriateness of Requested Diagnostic Tests</title><author>Bindels, Rianne ; Hasman, Arie ; van Wersch, Jan W. J. ; Pop, Peter ; Winkens, Ron A. G.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c360t-75785d64869532ff13aef93894e839b8f791f7e5426aa87f6df6c9af4695eb423</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Decision Support Systems, Clinical</topic><topic>Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures - utilization</topic><topic>Family Practice</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Netherlands</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Peer Review, Health Care - standards</topic><topic>Practice Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Practice Patterns, Physicians</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Utilization Review - standards</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bindels, Rianne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hasman, Arie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Wersch, Jan W. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pop, Peter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Winkens, Ron A. G.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical decision making</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bindels, Rianne</au><au>Hasman, Arie</au><au>van Wersch, Jan W. J.</au><au>Pop, Peter</au><au>Winkens, Ron A. G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Reliability of Assessing the Appropriateness of Requested Diagnostic Tests</atitle><jtitle>Medical decision making</jtitle><addtitle>Med Decis Making</addtitle><date>2003-01</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>31</spage><epage>37</epage><pages>31-37</pages><issn>0272-989X</issn><eissn>1552-681X</eissn><coden>MDMADE</coden><abstract>Despite a poor reliability, peer assessment is the traditional method to assess the appropriateness of health care activities. This article describes the reliability of the human assessment of the appropriateness of diagnostic tests requests. The authors used a random selection of 1217 tests from 253 request forms submitted by general practitioners in the Maastricht region of the Netherlands. Three reviewers independently assessed the appropriateness of each requested test. Interrater kappa values ranged from 0.33 to 0.42, and kappa values of intrarater agreement ranged from 0.48 to 0.68. The joint reliability coefficient of the 3 reviewers was 0.66. This reliability is sufficient to review test ordering over a series of cases but is not sufficient to make case-by-case assessments. Sixteen reviewers are needed to obtain a joint reliability of 0.95. The authors conclude that there is substantial variation in assessment concerning what is an appropriately requested diagnostic test and that this feedback method is not reliable enough to make a case-by-case assessment. Computer support may be beneficial to support and make the process of peer review more uniform.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>12583453</pmid><doi>10.1177/0272989X02239647</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0272-989X |
| ispartof | Medical decision making, 2003-01, Vol.23 (1), p.31-37 |
| issn | 0272-989X 1552-681X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_73037889 |
| source | Access via SAGE; MEDLINE |
| subjects | Decision Support Systems, Clinical Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures - utilization Family Practice Humans Netherlands Observer Variation Peer Review, Health Care - standards Practice Guidelines as Topic Practice Patterns, Physicians Reproducibility of Results Utilization Review - standards |
| title | The Reliability of Assessing the Appropriateness of Requested Diagnostic Tests |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T06%3A50%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Reliability%20of%20Assessing%20the%20Appropriateness%20of%20Requested%20Diagnostic%20Tests&rft.jtitle=Medical%20decision%20making&rft.au=Bindels,%20Rianne&rft.date=2003-01&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=31&rft.epage=37&rft.pages=31-37&rft.issn=0272-989X&rft.eissn=1552-681X&rft.coden=MDMADE&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0272989X02239647&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E283009021%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=223892191&rft_id=info:pmid/12583453&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0272989X02239647&rfr_iscdi=true |