Literature DB >> 9260704

What predicts gastroenterologists' and surgeons' diagnosis and management of common bile duct stones?

J A Shea1, D A Asch, R F Johnson, R N Staroscik, P F Malet, B J Pollack, J R Clarke, P E Green, J S Schwartz, S V Williams.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Because the literature suggests numerous indicators of common bile duct stones, we undertook a systematic assessment of physicians' judgments of the clinical utility of eight indicators: patient age, history of jaundice, history of pancreatitis, levels of serum alanine aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, amylase, and total bilirubin, and common bile duct diameter on ultrasonography.
METHODS: Random samples of 1500 gastroenterologists and 1500 surgeons were sent a survey asking them to indicate the importance of each potential indicator of common bile duct stones, the likelihood of common bile duct stones for each of nine clinical vignettes, and whether they would order a preoperative ERCP. An abbreviated survey was sent to nonrespondents.
RESULTS: Although there was substantial variation in the importances assigned to each indicator, the most important indicators were serum total bilirubin and diameter of common bile duct on ultrasound. The best predictors of the decision to order an ERCP were perceived likelihood of stones and specialty. The average threshold for ordering an ERCP was 37%. Respondents did not differ from nonrespondents in the perceived importance of the eight indicators.
CONCLUSIONS: The substantial variation among gastroenterologists and surgeons regarding the optimal approach to common bile duct stones has clinical implications. Patients will receive varying recommendations for care, depending on whom they see.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9260704     DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(97)70208-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  4 in total

1.  Exploring clinicians' attitudes about using aspirin for risk reduction in people with Lynch Syndrome with no personal diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Yanni Chen; Michelle Peate; Rajneesh Kaur; Bettina Meiser; Tim Wong; Judy Kirk; Robyn L Ward; Annabel Goodwin; Finlay Macrae; Janet Hiller; Alison H Trainer; Gillian Mitchell
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 2.375

2.  Race, treatment preferences, and hospice enrollment: eligibility criteria may exclude patients with the greatest needs for care.

Authors:  Jessica Fishman; Peter O'Dwyer; Hien L Lu; Hope R Henderson; Hope Henderson; David A Asch; David J Casarett
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-02-01       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  The terrible choice: re-evaluating hospice eligibility criteria for cancer.

Authors:  David J Casarett; Jessica M Fishman; Hien L Lu; Peter J O'Dwyer; Frances K Barg; Mary D Naylor; David A Asch
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-12-29       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 4.  Vignette studies of medical choice and judgement to study caregivers' medical decision behaviour: systematic review.

Authors:  Lucas M Bachmann; Andrea Mühleisen; Annekatrin Bock; Gerben ter Riet; Ulrike Held; Alfons G H Kessels
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2008-07-30       Impact factor: 4.615

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.