The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Special Article
PreviousPrevious
Volume 338:1888-1895 June 25, 1998 Number 26
NextNext

The Reproducibility of a Method to Identify the Overuse and Underuse of Medical Procedures
Paul G. Shekelle, M.D., Ph.D., James P. Kahan, Ph.D., Steven J. Bernstein, M.D., M.P.H., Lucian L. Leape, M.D., Caren J. Kamberg, M.P.H., and R.E. Park, Ph.D.

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF

Commentary
-Editorial
 by Naylor, C. D.

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT

Background To assess the overuse and underuse of medical procedures, various methods have been developed, but their reproducibility has not been evaluated. This study estimates the reproducibility of one commonly used method.

Methods We performed a parallel, three-way replication of the RAND–University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method as applied to two medical procedures, coronary revascularization and hysterectomy. Three nine-member multidisciplinary panels of experts were composed for each procedure by stratified random sampling from a list of experts nominated by the relevant specialty societies. Each panel independently rated the same set of clinical scenarios in terms of the appropriateness of the relevant procedure on a risk–benefit scale ranging from 1 to 9. Final ratings were used to classify the procedure in each scenario as necessary or not necessary (to evaluate underuse) and inappropriate or not inappropriate (to evaluate overuse). Reproducibility was measured by overall agreement and by the kappa statistic. The criteria for underuse and overuse derived from these ratings were then applied to real populations of patients who had undergone coronary revascularization or hysterectomy.

Results The rates of agreement among the three coronary-revascularization panels were 95, 94, and 96 percent for inappropriate-use scenarios and 93, 92, and 92 percent for necessary-use scenarios. Agreement among the three hysterectomy panels was 88, 70, and 74 percent for inappropriate-use scenarios. Scenarios involving necessary use of hysterectomy were not assessed. The three-way kappa statistic to detect overuse was 0.52 for coronary revascularization and 0.51 for hysterectomy. The three-way kappa statistic to detect underuse of coronary revascularization was 0.83. Application of individual panels' criteria to real populations of patients resulted in a 100 percent variation in the proportion of cases classified as inappropriate and a 20 percent variation in the proportion of cases classified as necessary.

Conclusions The appropriateness method is far from perfect. Appropriateness criteria may be useful in comparing levels of appropriate procedures among populations but should not by themselves be used to direct care for individual patients.


Source Information

From the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Los Angeles (P.G.S.); RAND, Santa Monica, Calif. (P.G.S., J.P.K., C.J.K., R.E.P.); the Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the Departments of Internal Medicine and Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (S.J.B.); and the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston (L.L.L.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Shekelle at RAND, 1700 Main St., P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138.

Full Text of this Article


This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.