Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Medical Decision Making
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bindels, R.
Right arrow Articles by Winkens, R. A. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bindels, R.
Right arrow Articles by Winkens, R. A. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Reliability of Assessing the Appropriateness of Requested Diagnostic Tests

Rianne Bindels, MSc

Arie Hasman, PhD

Jan W. J. van Wersch, PhD, MD

Peter Pop, PhD, MD

Ron A. G. Winkens, PhD, MD

Despite a poor reliability, peer assessment is the traditional method to assess the appropriateness of health care activities. This article describes the reliability of the human assessment of the appropriateness of diagnostic tests requests. The authors used a random selection of 1217 tests from 253 request forms submitted by general practitioners in the Maastricht region of the Netherlands. Three reviewers independently assessed the appropriateness of each requested test. Interrater kappa values ranged from 0.33 to 0.42, and kappa values of intrarater agreement ranged from 0.48 to 0.68. The joint reliability coefficient of the 3 reviewers was 0.66. This reliability is sufficient to review test ordering over a series of cases but is not sufficient to make case-by-case assessments. Sixteen reviewers are needed to obtain a joint reliability of 0.95. The authors conclude that there is substantial variation in assessment concerning what is an appropriately requested diagnostic test and that this feedback method is not reliable enough to make a case-by-case assessment. Computer support may be beneficial to support and make the process of peer review more uniform.

Key Words: observer variation • practice guidelines • diagnostic test • clinical decision support system • quality of care

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 23, No. 1, 31-37 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X02239647
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
R. C. Hawkins
Potentially inappropriate repeat laboratory testing in inpatients.
Clin. Chem., April 1, 2006; 52(4): 784 - 785.
[Full Text] [PDF]