Callaghan Brian, McCammon Ryan, Kerber Kevin, Xu Xiao, Langa Kenneth M, Feldman Eva
Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA.
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Jan 23;172(2):127-32. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.1032.
Peripheral neuropathy is a common disorder in which an extensive evaluation is often unrevealing.
We sought to define diagnostic practice patterns as an early step in identifying opportunities to improve efficiency of care. The 1996-2007 Health and Retirement Study Medicare claims-linked database was used to identify individuals with an incident diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes and required no previous neuropathy diagnosis during the preceding 30 months. Focusing on 15 relevant tests, we examined the number and patterns of tests and specific test utilization 6 months before and after the incident neuropathy diagnosis. Medicare expenditures were assessed during the baseline, diagnostic, and follow-up periods.
Of the 12, 673 patients, 1031 (8.1%) received a new International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, diagnosis of neuropathy and met the study inclusion criteria. Of the 15 tests considered, a median of 4 (interquartile range, 2-5) tests were performed, with more than 400 patterns of testing. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain or spine was ordered in 23.2% of patients, whereas a glucose tolerance test was rarely obtained (1.0%). Mean Medicare expenditures were significantly higher in the diagnostic period than in the baseline period ($14,362 vs $8067, P < .001).
Patients diagnosed as having peripheral neuropathy typically undergo many tests, but testing patterns are highly variable. Almost one-quarter of patients receiving neuropathy diagnoses undergo high-cost, low-yield magnetic resonance imaging, whereas few receive low-cost, high-yield glucose tolerance tests. Expenditures increase substantially in the diagnostic period. More research is needed to define effective and efficient strategies for the diagnostic evaluation of peripheral neuropathy.
周围神经病变是一种常见疾病,通常进行广泛评估却往往无法揭示病因。
我们试图确定诊断实践模式,作为识别提高医疗效率机会的早期步骤。利用1996 - 2007年健康与退休研究医疗保险索赔关联数据库,通过国际疾病分类第九版编码识别首次诊断为周围神经病变的个体,且要求在之前30个月内无先前神经病变诊断。聚焦于15项相关检查,我们检查了首次神经病变诊断前后6个月的检查数量和模式以及特定检查的使用情况。评估了医疗保险在基线期、诊断期和随访期的支出。
在12673例患者中,1031例(8.1%)获得了国际疾病分类第九版新的神经病变诊断并符合研究纳入标准。在考虑的15项检查中,中位检查次数为4次(四分位间距,2 - 5次),有超过400种检查模式。23.2%的患者进行了脑部或脊柱的磁共振成像检查,而很少进行葡萄糖耐量试验(1.0%)。诊断期的平均医疗保险支出显著高于基线期(14362美元对8067美元,P < .001)。
被诊断为周围神经病变的患者通常接受多项检查,但检查模式差异很大。几乎四分之一被诊断为神经病变的患者接受了高成本、低收益的磁共振成像检查,而很少有人接受低成本、高收益的葡萄糖耐量试验。诊断期的支出大幅增加。需要更多研究来确定周围神经病变诊断评估的有效和高效策略。