Engel Josien, van der Wulp Ineke, Poldervaart Judith M, Reitsma Johannes B, de Bruijne Martine C, Wagner Cordula
Department of Public and Occupational Health, VU University Medical Center, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary care, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
BMJ Open. 2015 Apr 8;5(4):e006441. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006441.
Cardiologists face the difficult task of rapidly distinguishing cardiac-related chest pain from other conditions, and to thoroughly consider whether invasive diagnostic procedures or treatments are indicated. The use of cardiac risk-scoring instruments has been recommended in international cardiac guidelines. However, it is unknown to what degree cardiac risk scores and other clinical information influence cardiologists' decision-making. This paper describes the development of a binary choice experiment using realistic descriptions of clinical cases. The study aims to determine the importance cardiologists put on different types of clinical information, including cardiac risk scores, when deciding on the management of patients with suspected unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
Cardiologists were asked, in a nationwide survey, to weigh different clinical factors in decision-making regarding patient admission and treatment using realistic descriptions of patients in which specific characteristics are varied in a systematic way (eg, web-based clinical vignettes). These vignettes represent patients with suspected unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Associations between several clinical characteristics, with cardiologists' management decisions, will be analysed using generalised linear mixed models.
The study has received ethics approval and informed consent will be obtained from all participating cardiologists. The results of the study will provide insight into the relative importance of cardiac risk scores and other clinical information in cardiac decision-making. Further, the results indicate cardiologists' adherence to the European Society of Cardiology guideline recommendations. In addition, the detailed description of the method of vignette development applied in this study could assist other researchers or clinicians in creating future choice experiments.
心脏病专家面临着一项艰巨的任务,即迅速将与心脏相关的胸痛与其他病症区分开来,并全面考虑是否需要进行侵入性诊断程序或治疗。国际心脏指南推荐使用心脏风险评分工具。然而,目前尚不清楚心脏风险评分和其他临床信息在多大程度上会影响心脏病专家的决策。本文描述了一项使用临床病例真实描述的二元选择实验的开展情况。该研究旨在确定心脏病专家在决定对疑似不稳定型心绞痛或非ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者进行管理时,对不同类型临床信息(包括心脏风险评分)的重视程度。
在一项全国性调查中,要求心脏病专家使用对患者的真实描述(其中特定特征以系统方式变化,例如基于网络的临床病例 vignettes),在关于患者入院和治疗的决策中权衡不同的临床因素。这些 vignettes 代表疑似不稳定型心绞痛或非ST段抬高型心肌梗死的患者。将使用广义线性混合模型分析几种临床特征与心脏病专家管理决策之间的关联。
该研究已获得伦理批准,并将从所有参与的心脏病专家处获得知情同意。研究结果将深入了解心脏风险评分和其他临床信息在心脏决策中的相对重要性。此外,结果表明心脏病专家对欧洲心脏病学会指南建议的遵循情况。此外,本研究中应用的 vignette 开发方法的详细描述可为其他研究人员或临床医生创建未来的选择实验提供帮助。