Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver · 2010
How to predict a high rate of inappropriateness for upper endoscopy in an endoscopic centre?
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание 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.
Buri L, Bersani G, Hassan C, Anti M, Bianco M A, Cipolletta L, Di Giulio E, Di Matteo G, Familiari L, Ficano L, Loriga P, Morini S, Pietropaolo V, Zambelli A, Grossi E, Intraligi M, Tessari F, Buscema M, SIED Appropriateness Working Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Inappropriateness of upper endoscopy (EGD) indication causes decreased diagnostic yield. Our aim of was to identify predictors of appropriateness rate for EGD among endoscopic centres.
METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of two multicentre cross-sectional studies, including 6270 and 8252 patients consecutively referred to EGD in 44 (group A) and 55 (group B) endoscopic Italian centres in 2003 and 2007, respectively, was performed. A multiple forward stepwise regression was applied to group A, and independently validated in group B. A <70% threshold was adopted to define inadequate appropriateness rate clustered by centre.
RESULTS: discrete variability of clustered appropriateness rates among the 44 group A centres was observed (median: 77%; range: 41-97%), and a <70% appropriateness rate was detected in 11 (25%). Independent predictors of centre appropriateness rate were: percentage of patients referred by general practitioners (GP), rate of urgent examinations, prevalence of relevant diseases, and academic status. For group B, sensitivity, specificity and area under receiver operating characteristic curve of the model in detecting centres with a <70% appropriateness rate were 54%, 93% and 0.72, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: A simple predictive rule, based on rate of patients referred by GPs, rate of urgent examinations, prevalence of relevant diseases and academic status, identified a small subset of centres characterised by a high rate of inappropriateness. These centres may be presumed to obtain the largest benefit from targeted educational programs.
METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of two multicentre cross-sectional studies, including 6270 and 8252 patients consecutively referred to EGD in 44 (group A) and 55 (group B) endoscopic Italian centres in 2003 and 2007, respectively, was performed. A multiple forward stepwise regression was applied to group A, and independently validated in group B. A <70% threshold was adopted to define inadequate appropriateness rate clustered by centre.
RESULTS: discrete variability of clustered appropriateness rates among the 44 group A centres was observed (median: 77%; range: 41-97%), and a <70% appropriateness rate was detected in 11 (25%). Independent predictors of centre appropriateness rate were: percentage of patients referred by general practitioners (GP), rate of urgent examinations, prevalence of relevant diseases, and academic status. For group B, sensitivity, specificity and area under receiver operating characteristic curve of the model in detecting centres with a <70% appropriateness rate were 54%, 93% and 0.72, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: A simple predictive rule, based on rate of patients referred by GPs, rate of urgent examinations, prevalence of relevant diseases and academic status, identified a small subset of centres characterised by a high rate of inappropriateness. These centres may be presumed to obtain the largest benefit from targeted educational programs.