This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Pearson, S. D. Articles by Gottlieb, L. K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pearson, S. D. Articles by Gottlieb, L. K. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Clinical Algorithm Nosology

A Method for Comparing Algorithmic Guidelines

Carmi Z. Margolis

Scott Davis

Lisa K. Schreier

Lawrence K. Gottlieb

Concern regarding the cost and quality of medical care has led to a proliferation of competing clinical practice guidelines. No technique has been described for determining objectively the degree of similarity between alternative guidelines for the same clinical problem. The authors describe the development of the Clinical Algorithm Nosology (CAN), a new method to com pare one form of guideline the clinical algorithm The CAN measures overall design com plexity independent of algorithm content, qualitatively describes the clinical differences be tween two alternative algorithms, and then scores the degree of similarity between them CAN algorithm design-complexity scores correlated highly with clinicians' estimates of com plexity on an ordinal scale (r = 0 86) Five pairs of clinical algorithms addressing three topics (gallstone lithotripsy, thyroid nodule, and smusitis) were selected for interrater reliability testing of the CAN clinical-similarity scoring system Raters categorized the similarity of algorithm pathways in alternative algorithms as "identical," "similar," or "different " Interrater agreement was achieved on 85/109 scores (80%), weighted kappa statistic, k = 0 73. It is concluded that the CAN is a valid method for determining the structural complexity of clinical algorithms, and a reliable method for describing differences and scoring the similarity between algorithms for the same clinical problem In the future, the CAN may serve to evaluate the reliability of algorithm development programs, and to support providers and purchasers in choosing among alternative clinical guidelines. Key words. guidelines; clinical algorithms, reliability; validity; quality assurance. (Med Decis Making 1992;12:123-131)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 12, No. 2, 123-131 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X9201200205


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J.-L. Bosson and J. Labarere Determining Indications for Care Common to Competing Guidelines by Using Classification Tree Analysis: Application to the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Medical Inpatients Med Decis Making, January 1, 2006; 26(1): 63 - 75. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Barak, C. Z. Margolis, and L. K. Gottlieb Text-to-algorithm Conversion to Facilitate Comparison of Competing Clinical Guidelines Med Decis Making, August 1, 1998; 18(3): 304 - 310. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. T. Berger and F. Rosner The Ethics of Practice Guidelines Arch Intern Med, October 14, 1996; 156(18): 2051 - 2056. [Abstract] [PDF]