Lesuis Nienke, Hulscher Marlies E J L, Piek Ester, Demirel Hatice, van der Laan-Baalbergen Nicole, Meek Inger, van Vollenhoven Ronald F, den Broeder Alfons A
Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2016 Apr;68(4):562-9. doi: 10.1002/acr.22725.
To assess the effect of a simple intervention on antinuclear antibody (ANA) test overuse by rheumatologists.
This was an explorative, pragmatic, before-and-after, controlled implementation study among rheumatologists working at 3 rheumatology departments in secondary and tertiary care centers in The Netherlands. The intervention was given in all study centers separately and combined education with feedback. Six outcome measures describe the intervention effects: the ANA/new patient ratio (APR), difference with the target APR, percentage of positive ANA tests, percentage of repeated ANA testing, percentage of ANA-associated diseases, and APR variation between rheumatologists. Outcomes were compared between the pre- and postintervention period (both 12 months) using (multilevel) logistic regression or F testing. Results are reported together for centers 1 and 2, and separately for center 3, because ANA tests could not be linked to an individual rheumatologist in center 3.
The APR decreased from 0.37 to 0.11 after the intervention in centers 1 and 2 (odds ratio [OR] 0.19, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.17-0.22, P < 0.001) and from 0.45 to 0.30 in center 3 (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.45-0.62, P < 0.001). The percentage of repeated ANA requests in all centers and the APR variation for centers 1 and 2 decreased significantly. Only in center 3 did the percentage of ANA-associated diseases increase significantly.
A simple intervention resulted in a relevant and significant decrease in the numbers of ANA tests requested by rheumatologists, together with an improvement on 3 other outcome measures.
评估一项简单干预措施对风湿病学家过度使用抗核抗体(ANA)检测的影响。
这是一项在荷兰二级和三级医疗中心的3个风湿病科工作的风湿病学家中进行的探索性、实用性、前后对照的实施研究。干预措施在所有研究中心分别实施,将教育与反馈相结合。六项结果指标描述了干预效果:ANA/新患者比率(APR)、与目标APR的差值、ANA检测阳性百分比、重复ANA检测百分比、ANA相关疾病百分比以及风湿病学家之间的APR差异。使用(多水平)逻辑回归或F检验比较干预前(12个月)和干预后(12个月)的结果。中心1和中心2的结果合并报告,中心3的结果单独报告,因为中心3的ANA检测无法与个体风湿病学家相关联。
在中心1和中心2,干预后APR从0.37降至0.11(优势比[OR]0.19,95%置信区间[95%CI]0.17 - 0.22,P < 0.001),在中心3从0.45降至0.30(OR 0.53,95%CI 0.45 - 0.62,P < 0.001)。所有中心重复ANA检测请求的百分比以及中心1和中心2的APR差异均显著降低。仅在中心3,ANA相关疾病的百分比显著增加。
一项简单干预措施使风湿病学家请求的ANA检测数量显著且相关地减少,同时在其他三项结果指标上也有所改善。