Suppr超能文献

评估间质性肺疾病多学科会议:对专家中心的一项调查

Evaluating the interstitial lung disease multidisciplinary meeting: a survey of expert centres.

作者信息

Jo Helen E, Corte Tamera J, Moodley Yuben, Levin Kovi, Westall Glen, Hopkins Peter, Chambers Daniel, Glaspole Ian

机构信息

Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

出版信息

BMC Pulm Med. 2016 Feb 1;16:22. doi: 10.1186/s12890-016-0179-3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Multidisciplinary meetings (MDM) are the current "gold standard" in interstitial lung disease (ILD) diagnosis and comprise inter-disciplinary discussion of multiple forms of information to provide diagnostic and management outputs. Although bias could be potentially inserted at any step in the discussion process, to date there has been no consensus regarding the appropriate constitution and governance of MDM. We sought to determine the features of ILD MDMs based within ILD centres of excellence around the world.

METHODS

An internet based questionnaire was sent to twelve expert centres in Europe, North America, and Australia seeking information regarding the structure and governance of their MDM. Data was analysed for consistent themes and points of contrast.

RESULTS

Responses were received from 10 out of 12 centres. Similarities were demonstrated with regards to contributing attendees, meeting frequency and case numbers reviewed. Significant heterogeneity in attendee speciality group type, quantity and method of data presentation, approach to diagnosis formulation and documentation, and information provision was apparent.

CONCLUSIONS

The constitution of ILD MDMs differs considerably between expert centres. Such differences may result in discordant outcomes, and emphasise the need for further evidence regarding the appropriate constitution and governance of ILD MDMs.

摘要

背景

多学科会诊(MDM)是目前间质性肺疾病(ILD)诊断的“金标准”,包括对多种形式信息进行跨学科讨论,以提供诊断和管理结果。尽管在讨论过程的任何环节都可能存在潜在偏差,但迄今为止,关于MDM的适当组成和管理尚无共识。我们试图确定全球卓越ILD中心内ILD MDM的特征。

方法

向欧洲、北美和澳大利亚的12个专家中心发送了一份基于互联网的问卷,以获取有关其MDM结构和管理的信息。对数据进行分析,找出一致的主题和对比点。

结果

12个中心中有10个回复。在参与会诊的人员、会诊频率和审查的病例数量方面表现出相似性。在参会专业组类型、数据呈现的数量和方法、诊断制定和记录方法以及信息提供方面存在明显的异质性。

结论

专家中心之间ILD MDM的组成差异很大。这些差异可能导致不一致的结果,并强调需要进一步提供关于ILD MDM适当组成和管理的证据。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/d50e/4736654/dfb5999edb24/12890_2016_179_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验