OBJECTIVE: Examine the reproducibility of the RAND method for developing criteria for the appropriateness of medical procedures. DESIGN: Comparison of two sets of explicit criteria for appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy, developed by separate expert panels from two countries. SETTING: United States, Switzerland. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: National experts from different medical specialties involved in the referral or application of UGI endoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Each panel was presented with about 500 clinical scenarios (indications) that were rated on a nine-point scale as to the appropriateness of performing UGI endoscopy for a patient with that clinical presentation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) distribution of appropriateness ratings and intrapanel agreement categories between the two panels, (2) between-panel agreement of assigning appropriateness for comparable indications and, (3) percentage of indications with major between-panel differences. RESULTS: Ratings for 2/3 of indications could be compared. The Swiss panel showed higher intrapanel agreement (54.6% versus 46.2%, P = 0.002). Seventy-eight per cent of comparable indications were assigned to identical categories of appropriateness by both panels (kappa = 0.76, P < 0.001). For 93% of the 376 comparable indications, there were no major interpanel differences. CONCLUSION: Separate expert panels in different countries, using a standardized methodology, produce criteria for appropriateness of medical procedures that are similar. Given the resources being invested throughout the world in developing criteria and guidelines, international collaboration in seeking optimal use of limited health care resources should be intensified.
OBJECTIVE: Examine the reproducibility of the RAND method for developing criteria for the appropriateness of medical procedures. DESIGN: Comparison of two sets of explicit criteria for appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy, developed by separate expert panels from two countries. SETTING: United States, Switzerland. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: National experts from different medical specialties involved in the referral or application of UGI endoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Each panel was presented with about 500 clinical scenarios (indications) that were rated on a nine-point scale as to the appropriateness of performing UGI endoscopy for a patient with that clinical presentation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) distribution of appropriateness ratings and intrapanel agreement categories between the two panels, (2) between-panel agreement of assigning appropriateness for comparable indications and, (3) percentage of indications with major between-panel differences. RESULTS: Ratings for 2/3 of indications could be compared. The Swiss panel showed higher intrapanel agreement (54.6% versus 46.2%, P = 0.002). Seventy-eight per cent of comparable indications were assigned to identical categories of appropriateness by both panels (kappa = 0.76, P < 0.001). For 93% of the 376 comparable indications, there were no major interpanel differences. CONCLUSION: Separate expert panels in different countries, using a standardized methodology, produce criteria for appropriateness of medical procedures that are similar. Given the resources being invested throughout the world in developing criteria and guidelines, international collaboration in seeking optimal use of limited health care resources should be intensified.
Authors: Elena Moro; Michael Schüpbach; Tobias Wächter; Niels Allert; Roberto Eleopra; Christopher R Honey; Mauricio Rueda; Mya C Schiess; Yasushi Shimo; Peter Valkovic; Alan Whone; Herman Stoevelaar Journal: J Neurol Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 4.849