OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the consistency in appropriate use criteria (AUC) ratings among a broad range of practicing cardiologists and the AUC Technical Panel. BACKGROUND: AUC for coronary revascularization have been developed by selected experts. METHODS: Before AUC publication, 85 cardiologists from 10 U.S. institutions assessed the appropriateness of coronary revascularization for 68 indications that had been evaluated by the AUC Technical Panel. Each indication was classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate, based on the physician group's median rating. Rates of concordance between the physician group and the AUC Technical Panel (i.e., same appropriateness category assignment) and rates of nonagreement within the physician group (≥ 25% of panelists' ratings outside the group's appropriateness category assessment) were determined. RESULTS: Overall concordance between the 2 groups was 84%. Among indications classified as appropriate by the AUC Technical Panel, concordance between the 2 groups was excellent (94% [34 of 36]); however, nonagreement within the physician group was 44% (16 of 36). Among indications classified as uncertain, there was 73% (16 of 22) concordance between the 2 groups. Among inappropriate indications, concordance was moderate (70% [7 of 10]), but nonagreement occurred frequently (70% [7 of 10]). Moreover, there was substantial variation in appropriateness ratings between individual physicians and the AUC Technical Panel (weighted kappa range: 0.05 to 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was good concordance in assessments of appropriateness for coronary revascularization between physicians and the AUC Technical Panel, nonagreement within the physician group was common and there was marked variation in ratings between individual physicians and the AUC Technical Panel.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the consistency in appropriate use criteria (AUC) ratings among a broad range of practicing cardiologists and the AUC Technical Panel. BACKGROUND: AUC for coronary revascularization have been developed by selected experts. METHODS: Before AUC publication, 85 cardiologists from 10 U.S. institutions assessed the appropriateness of coronary revascularization for 68 indications that had been evaluated by the AUC Technical Panel. Each indication was classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate, based on the physician group's median rating. Rates of concordance between the physician group and the AUC Technical Panel (i.e., same appropriateness category assignment) and rates of nonagreement within the physician group (≥ 25% of panelists' ratings outside the group's appropriateness category assessment) were determined. RESULTS: Overall concordance between the 2 groups was 84%. Among indications classified as appropriate by the AUC Technical Panel, concordance between the 2 groups was excellent (94% [34 of 36]); however, nonagreement within the physician group was 44% (16 of 36). Among indications classified as uncertain, there was 73% (16 of 22) concordance between the 2 groups. Among inappropriate indications, concordance was moderate (70% [7 of 10]), but nonagreement occurred frequently (70% [7 of 10]). Moreover, there was substantial variation in appropriateness ratings between individual physicians and the AUC Technical Panel (weighted kappa range: 0.05 to 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was good concordance in assessments of appropriateness for coronary revascularization between physicians and the AUC Technical Panel, nonagreement within the physician group was common and there was marked variation in ratings between individual physicians and the AUC Technical Panel.
Authors: Manesh R Patel; Gregory J Dehmer; John W Hirshfeld; Peter K Smith; John A Spertus Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Siqin Ye; LeRoy E Rabbani; Christopher R Kelly; Maureen R Kelly; Matthew Lewis; Yehuda Paz; Clara L Peck; Shaline Rao; Sabahat Bokhari; Shepard D Weiner; Andrew J Einstein Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2015-01-06
Authors: Jesse Xiaolong Yang; Margaret J Stevenson; Linda Valsdottir; Kalon Ho; John A Spertus; Robert W Yeh; Jordan B Strom Journal: Heart Date: 2019-12-19 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Paul S Chan; Manesh R Patel; Lloyd W Klein; Ronald J Krone; Gregory J Dehmer; Kevin Kennedy; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; W Douglas Weaver; Frederick A Masoudi; John S Rumsfeld; Ralph G Brindis; John A Spertus Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 56.272