Journal of clinical gastroenterology · 2012
Do gastroenterologists adhere to diagnostic and treatment guidelines for celiac disease?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Parakkal Deepak, Du Hongyan, Semer Rumi, Ehrenpreis Eli Daniel, Guandalini Stefano
Аннотация
AIM: Our group hypothesized that significant variation exists between suggested clinical guidelines, the clinical practices of practicing gastroenterologists and academic experts in celiac disease (CD).
METHOD: We designed 4 CD vignettes comparing experts and practicing gastroenterologists. Practicing gastroenterologists (n=169) were surveyed during Digestive Disease Week 2009 and experts (n=22) answered e-mail surveys. Ratings for answers in each vignette was done using a 9-point RAND Appropriateness Scale (RAS) with endorsement defined as RAS score of 7 to 9. We also calculated the RAND "Disagreement Index" (DI) was calculated, with DI>1.0 indicated extreme variation.
RESULTS: A total of 169 practicing gastroenterologists and 22 experts were included. Differences in all vignette answers were present. Differences were seen for use of IgA anti-endomysial antibodies (P=0.0241), human leukocyte antigen DQ2/8 testing (P=0.0325), gluten challenge (P<0.0001), and oat consumption (P<0.0001). There were differences in recommendations for biopsy review (P=0.0479) and management of dermatitis herpetiformis (P=0.0025). Experts consistently endorsed CD screening in patients with type 1 diabetes, Down and Turner syndromes, and relatives of CD patients compared with practicing physicians (P=0.0054, 0.0003, <0.0001, 0.0304). Experts endorsed CD screening for atypical presentations (delayed puberty, elevated transaminases, primary biliary cirrhosis, autoimmune hepatitis, and infertility).
CONCLUSION: There is significant disagreement between nonexperts and experts in diagnosis and management of CD. Promotion of existing guidelines and further research is advised.
METHOD: We designed 4 CD vignettes comparing experts and practicing gastroenterologists. Practicing gastroenterologists (n=169) were surveyed during Digestive Disease Week 2009 and experts (n=22) answered e-mail surveys. Ratings for answers in each vignette was done using a 9-point RAND Appropriateness Scale (RAS) with endorsement defined as RAS score of 7 to 9. We also calculated the RAND "Disagreement Index" (DI) was calculated, with DI>1.0 indicated extreme variation.
RESULTS: A total of 169 practicing gastroenterologists and 22 experts were included. Differences in all vignette answers were present. Differences were seen for use of IgA anti-endomysial antibodies (P=0.0241), human leukocyte antigen DQ2/8 testing (P=0.0325), gluten challenge (P<0.0001), and oat consumption (P<0.0001). There were differences in recommendations for biopsy review (P=0.0479) and management of dermatitis herpetiformis (P=0.0025). Experts consistently endorsed CD screening in patients with type 1 diabetes, Down and Turner syndromes, and relatives of CD patients compared with practicing physicians (P=0.0054, 0.0003, <0.0001, 0.0304). Experts endorsed CD screening for atypical presentations (delayed puberty, elevated transaminases, primary biliary cirrhosis, autoimmune hepatitis, and infertility).
CONCLUSION: There is significant disagreement between nonexperts and experts in diagnosis and management of CD. Promotion of existing guidelines and further research is advised.