Clinical journal of sport medicine : official journal of the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine · 2005
A pilot study of clinical agreement in cardiovascular preparticipation examinations: how good is the standard of care?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
O'Connor Francis G, Johnson Jeremy D, Chapin Mark, Oriscello Ralph G, Taylor Dean C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interobserver agreement between physicians regarding a abnormal cardiovascular assessment on athletic preparticipation examinations.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional clinical survey.
SETTING: Outpatient Clinic, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY.
PARTICIPANTS: We randomly selected 101 out of 539 cadet-athletes presenting for a preparticipation examination. Two primary care sports medicine fellows and a cardiologist examined the cadets.
INTERVENTIONS: After obtaining informed consent from all participants, all 3 physicians separately evaluated all 101 cadets. The physicians recorded their clinical findings and whether they thought further cardiovascular evaluation (echocardiography) was indicated.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of referral for further cardiovascular evaluation, clinical agreement between sports medicine fellows, and clinical agreement between sports medicine fellows and the cardiologist.
RESULTS: Each fellow referred 6 of the 101 evaluated cadets (5.9%). The cardiologist referred none. Although each fellow referred 6 cadets, only 1 cadet was referred by both. The kappa statistic for clinical agreement between fellows is 0.114 (95% CI, -0.182 to 0.411). There was no clinical agreement between the fellows and the cardiologist.
CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study reveals a low level of agreement between physicians regarding which athletes with an abnormal examination deserved further testing. It challenges the standard of care and questions whether there is a need for improved technologies or improved training in cardiovascular clinical assessment.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional clinical survey.
SETTING: Outpatient Clinic, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY.
PARTICIPANTS: We randomly selected 101 out of 539 cadet-athletes presenting for a preparticipation examination. Two primary care sports medicine fellows and a cardiologist examined the cadets.
INTERVENTIONS: After obtaining informed consent from all participants, all 3 physicians separately evaluated all 101 cadets. The physicians recorded their clinical findings and whether they thought further cardiovascular evaluation (echocardiography) was indicated.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of referral for further cardiovascular evaluation, clinical agreement between sports medicine fellows, and clinical agreement between sports medicine fellows and the cardiologist.
RESULTS: Each fellow referred 6 of the 101 evaluated cadets (5.9%). The cardiologist referred none. Although each fellow referred 6 cadets, only 1 cadet was referred by both. The kappa statistic for clinical agreement between fellows is 0.114 (95% CI, -0.182 to 0.411). There was no clinical agreement between the fellows and the cardiologist.
CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study reveals a low level of agreement between physicians regarding which athletes with an abnormal examination deserved further testing. It challenges the standard of care and questions whether there is a need for improved technologies or improved training in cardiovascular clinical assessment.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdolescentAdultAthletic InjuriesCardiovascular DiseasesCross-Sectional StudiesEchocardiography, DopplerFemaleHealth Planning GuidelinesHealth Services Needs and DemandHeart MurmursHumansIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningObserver VariationPhysical ExaminationPilot ProjectsRisk AssessmentSchool Health ServicesSportsTotal Quality Management