Literature DB >> 29566273

Appropriate use criteria in dermatopathology: Initial recommendations from the American Society of Dermatopathology.

Claudia I Vidal1, Eric A Armbrect2, Aleodor A Andea3, Angela K Bohlke4, Nneka I Comfere5, Sarah R Hughes6, Jinah Kim7, Jessica A Kozel8, Jason B Lee9, Konstantinos Linos10, Brandon R Litzner11,12, Tricia A Missall1, Roberto A Novoa7, Uma Sundram13, Brian L Swick14, Maria Yadira Hurley1, Murad Alam15, Zsolt Argenyi16, Lyn M Duncan17, Dirk M Elston18, Patrick O Emanuel19, Tammie Ferringer20, Maxwell A Fung21, Gregory A Hosler22, Alexander J Lazar23, Lori Lowe3, Jose A Plaza24, Victor G Prieto23, June K Robinson25, Andras Schaffer26, Antonio Subtil27, Wei-Lien Wang28.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Appropriate use criteria (AUC) provide physicians guidance in test selection, and can affect health care delivery, reimbursement policy and physician decision-making.
OBJECTIVES: The American Society of Dermatopathology, with input from the American Academy of Dermatology and the College of American Pathologists, sought to develop AUC in dermatopathology.
METHODS: The RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology, which combines evidence-based medicine, clinical experience and expert judgment, was used to develop AUC in dermatopathology.
RESULTS: With the number of ratings predetermined at 3, AUC were developed for 211 clinical scenarios involving 12 ancillary studies. Consensus was reached for 188 (89%) clinical scenarios, with 93 (44%) considered "usually appropriate," 52 (25%) "rarely appropriate" and 43 (20%) "uncertain appropriateness." LIMITATIONS: The methodology requires a focus on appropriateness without comparison between tests and irrespective of cost.
CONCLUSIONS: The ultimate decision of when to order specific test rests with the physician and is one where the expected benefit exceeds the negative consequences. This publication outlines the recommendations of appropriateness-AUC for 12 tests used in dermatopathology. Importantly, these recommendations may change considering new evidence. Results deemed "uncertain appropriateness" and where consensus was not reached may benefit from further research.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords:  ancillary studies; appropriate use criteria; dermatopathology; evidence-based medicine; expert rating

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29566273     DOI: 10.1111/cup.13142

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cutan Pathol        ISSN: 0303-6987            Impact factor:   1.587


  4 in total

Review 1.  Through the looking glass and what you find there: making sense of comparative genomic hybridization and fluorescence in situ hybridization for melanoma diagnosis.

Authors:  Jayson Miedema; Aleodor A Andea
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 7.842

2.  Assessing interobserver variability and accuracy in the histological diagnosis and classification of cutaneous neurofibromass.

Authors:  Nicolas Ortonne; Steven L Carroll; Fausto J Rodriguez; Douglas C Miller; Rosalynn M Nazarian; Jaishri O Blakeley; Zachary B Madaj; Sharad K Verma; Anat Stemmer-Rachamimov
Journal:  Neurooncol Adv       Date:  2019-12-05

Review 3.  Usefulness of High-Frequency Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Melanoma: Mini Review.

Authors:  Maria Paola Belfiore; Alfonso Reginelli; Anna Russo; Gaetano Maria Russo; Maria Paola Rocco; Elvira Moscarella; Marilina Ferrante; Antonello Sica; Roberto Grassi; Salvatore Cappabianca
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 6.244

4.  The influence of p16 immunohistochemistry on diagnosis and management recommendation of melanocytic neoplasms by dermatopathologists: A prospective study.

Authors:  Jessica R Terrell; Iryna Rybak; Yue Lyu; Thomas Konia; Maxwell A Fung; Lihong Qi; Maija Kiuru
Journal:  J Cutan Pathol       Date:  2020-11-20       Impact factor: 1.458

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.