Burnand B, Vader J P, Froehlich F, Dupriez K, Larequi-Lauber T, Pache I, Dubois R W, Brook R H, Gonvers J J
Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine and Division of Gastroenterology, Medical Outpatient Clinic, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.
Gastrointest Endosc. 1998 Feb;47(2):162-6. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(98)70350-5.
This study examined the reliability of explicit guidelines developed using the RAND-UCLA appropriateness method.
The appropriateness of over 400 indications for colonoscopy was rated by two multispecialty expert panels (United States and Switzerland). A nine-point scale was used, which was consolidated into three categories of appropriateness: appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate. The distribution of appropriateness ratings between the two panels and the intrapanel and interpanel agreement for categories of appropriateness were calculated for all possible indications. Similar statistics were calculated for a series of 577 primary care patients referred for colonoscopy in Switzerland.
Over 80% of all indications (348) could be directly compared. The proportions of indications classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate were 28.4%, 24.7%, 46.6% and 33.0%, 23.0%, 44.0% for the U.S. and the Swiss panels, respectively. Interpanel agreement was excellent for all the possible indications (kappa value: 0.75) and lower for actual cases (kappa value: 0.51) because of lower agreement for the most frequently encountered indications.
Good agreement between the two sets of criteria was found, pointing to the reliability of the method. Partial disagreement occurred essentially for a few, albeit frequently encountered, indications for use of colonoscopy in cases of uncomplicated lower abdominal pain or constipation.
