Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2009
Assessing the appropriate use of laparoscopic surgery for hepatobiliary diseases.
Consensus StatementСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Molina-Linde J M, Lacalle-Remigio Juan Ramon, Villegas-Portero R, Díaz-Gómez D, Gómez-Bujedo L, Parra-Membrives P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The range of indications for laparoscopic surgery has widened since it was first introduced. The aim of the present study was to develop standards for the appropriate use of laparoscopic surgery in patients with choledocholithiasis or cholelithiasis.
METHOD: We conducted a study following the RAND appropriateness method (RAM) to develop criteria for hepatobiliary laparoscopy. A panel comprised of 7 experts rated the appropriateness of a set of indications, from 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate). The panelists performed ratings in 2 rounds. The first round was performed independently by every expert. The second round took place during a face-to-face meeting. According to the median of panelists' ratings and agreement criteria, every indication was classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate.
RESULTS: In the first round, 112 (46.7%) indications were judged as appropriate, 102 (42.5%) as uncertain, and 26 (10.8%) as inappropriate. In the second round, 99 indications (48.5%) were considered as appropriate, 81 (39.7%) as uncertain, and 24 (11.8%) as inappropriate. Disagreement between panelists decreased in the second round compared with the first round. Thirteen indications were rated as disagreement (6.4%), 125 as uncertain (61.3%), and 66 as agreement (32.3%), while in the first round, the results and proportions were 44 (18.3%), 132 (55.0%), and 64 (26.7%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: By using RAM, the panel was able to develop detailed explicit appropriateness criteria for the proper application of hepatobiliary laparoscopy. The criteria may be used prospectively to help in making clinical decisions or retrospectively to assess the overuse of clinical procedures.
METHOD: We conducted a study following the RAND appropriateness method (RAM) to develop criteria for hepatobiliary laparoscopy. A panel comprised of 7 experts rated the appropriateness of a set of indications, from 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate). The panelists performed ratings in 2 rounds. The first round was performed independently by every expert. The second round took place during a face-to-face meeting. According to the median of panelists' ratings and agreement criteria, every indication was classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate.
RESULTS: In the first round, 112 (46.7%) indications were judged as appropriate, 102 (42.5%) as uncertain, and 26 (10.8%) as inappropriate. In the second round, 99 indications (48.5%) were considered as appropriate, 81 (39.7%) as uncertain, and 24 (11.8%) as inappropriate. Disagreement between panelists decreased in the second round compared with the first round. Thirteen indications were rated as disagreement (6.4%), 125 as uncertain (61.3%), and 66 as agreement (32.3%), while in the first round, the results and proportions were 44 (18.3%), 132 (55.0%), and 64 (26.7%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: By using RAM, the panel was able to develop detailed explicit appropriateness criteria for the proper application of hepatobiliary laparoscopy. The criteria may be used prospectively to help in making clinical decisions or retrospectively to assess the overuse of clinical procedures.